Jackson Free Press

This is so deliciously educational that it deserves its own blog entry. In an article today about the city's legal-ad controversy, The Clarion-Ledger admits that out of its total circulation of "roughly 100,000," that only "about 22,000" of that is in Jackson. That means that less than a quarter of the paper's circulation is in Jackson—perhaps explaining a lot about why the paper dumps on Jackson so hard. Of course, its dumping on Jackson so hard is probably part of the reason so few Jacksonians read The Clarion-Ledger. It also explains why the Ledge is chopping itself up into pitiful little pieces and throwing piles of unwanted publications in our yards -- in a corporate scheme to try to force more Jacksonians onto its circulation rolls.

The Link has a circulation of roughly 4,000. The Clarion-Ledger has a circulation of roughly 100,000 - about 22,000 inside the city limits.

So how many copies does your home get of the Northeast Ledger — we get four every week, and there are only three people who live in our building. Hmmm.

Previous Commentsshow

Those free, yard-borne papers make great liners for my snake tanks... My pythons aren't really particular about the journalistic integrity. ;-)

kaust

Feb 25 2006

I still say we collect a mountain of them and go throw them on the Clarion-Ledger's sidewalk downtown in the city that barely reads their paper. ;-) Hold a "Throw Your Ledge Back Day," with cocktails and music afterward in the Red Room, or dancing in the Voodoo Lounge, to celebrate our "non-existent" downtown nightlife.

DonnaLadd

Feb 25 2006

Do they mean 22,000 paid subscribers in the city limits or the number of papers distributed in the city?

golden eagle

Feb 25 2006

I dunno. That's what the story says. My guess is that they would be referring to "paid" subscribers in the context of this story, but you know how precise the reporting is over there. Either way, it indicates a piddly Jackson readership for a paper that's been here for so many years.

DonnaLadd

Feb 25 2006

Online readership probably has a lot to do with that circulation being low, too...

millhouse

Feb 25 2006

Fedbizopps and the MS Contract Procurement Center Between these two sites you may never need the “printed” legal ads to find opportunities for selling goods and services to the City, State, or the Feds ever again. In fact, Jackson's webpage should have every legal ad posted on the website. It doesn't! They do have a hard copy you can use at City Hall; and each department keeps track of the goods and services they may need. The "printed" legal ads are becoming old school fast, and the ones who succeed in securing gov't business are the ones who beat the bushes from more then one angle. The gov't has some very useful tools if you are willing to spend some time (and headaches) getting through the initial b.s.

pikersam

Feb 26 2006

I just saw a headline that further convinced me that the C-L sucks: "Illegal aliens cost state $25M" ...and then, after proclaiming this as fact, it pretends to offer a two-sided discussion of the issue. The reporters don't ask the obvious question, which is: How does Phil Bryant arrive at the figure of $44.2M in contributions to the state and $69.3M in taxpayer costs when undocumented immigrants are, by definition, undocumented? Bryant isn't auditing; he's electioneering, probably with a shot at the 2007 open lieutenant governor's spot in mind. And if he has to count on nativist "unhyphenated American" hatemongering to do it, well, it's a politically safer way of winning the CofCC's support than actually speaking before the group. I used to respect Phil Bryant. As of five minutes ago, I don't. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 26 2006

Well, now I know I'm not alone! I am one of the many people who have chosen not to read the Clarion-Ledger. I stopped taking it years ago. Every issue seemed the same to me...so why keep reading? I do check the headlines on the CL website just to see what's there. I also get the Thursday freebie thrown into my driveway every week. It goes directly into our recycle bin. If I'm going to read something, I want to feel that it's worth my time. The Clarion-Ledger falls short. BKS

BKS

Feb 26 2006

So, essentially, approximately 22% of the The Clarion-Ledger's subscribers are from the newspaper's home city. Is that a low percentage or high percentage for newspapers in capital cities in the South? e.g. The Montgomery Advertiser, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, The Tennessean? Are there any websites that provide detailed circulation statistics for newspapers? Comparing numbers might allow us to whether this percentage is a problem for The Clarion-Ledger, and if so, how significant of a problem.

sny guy

Feb 26 2006

Sunday February 26 Clarion Ledger Page 4-E: MISSISSIPPI LINK is seeking an exp. staff writer. Journalism degree preferred. Call 601 896 0084 ext. 207. Let's see... Mississippi Link/Clarion Ledger....ad.....hmmmmm.

Ben Allen

Feb 26 2006

I don't know the best way to find out those specific numbers, sny guy, because most daily newspapers actually serve a city rather than an entire state. I believe strongly that that's why The Clarion-Ledger is such poor quality -- they are afraid of "offending" readers in the rest of the state with sophisticated journalism that would be more appreciated here. Of course, I believe it would be appreciated there, too, but who am I to muck with, er, conventional wisdom? ;-) But I will ask around and see if there are sites that break down circulation of dailies by different cities; I sure would like to see, too. However, I can tell you that this is very telling about The Clarion-Ledger -- it's not like Mississippi has a lot of population centers. Their circulation *should* be higher in Jackson, although I'm not surprised that it's not.

DonnaLadd

Feb 26 2006

Ladd, which Mississippi daily newspaper provides the most sophisticated journalism? One would expect The Clarion-Ledger because of its vast resources, but I know you don't believe that's the case. Would it be The Sun-Herald? Or do none of them do an adequate job? What would be a good model for a newspaper like the CL to follow? They can't be The Times, The Wall Street Journal, or even The Dallas Morning-News, but there has to be a good example of a paper with a similar market size as Jackson that's offering sophisticated journalism.

sny guy

Feb 26 2006

but there has to be a good example of a paper with a similar market size as Jackson that's offering sophisticated journalism. Sny guy, just who died and gave you the privilege of setting rules for my opinions, my postings or my Web site!?! No one? I didn't think so. ;-) Now. Back to the topic I was discussing; I'll see if I can handle it without your fine guidance. There are many *smaller* newspapers around the country that do a better job than The Clarion-Ledger -- it's the corporatization, and watering down, that is the problem, if you hadn't noticed. That said, some of them are even owned by Gannett, although not too many. One of the Florida dailies, for instance (I'd have to look up which ones, and I don't have time), did a far more sophisticated job of covering the tort reform issue, and even Gannett News Service did an analysis of the issue that The Clarion-Ledger never touched. Some more conservative papers (like some of the Freedom papers) do more sophisticated journalism, in similar-sized markets. As for papers in Mississippi, both the Sun-Herald and the Daily Journal in Tupelo do better reporting. And I'm insanely jealous everytime I pick up the Commercial-Appeal in Memphis at how much better that paper is than The Clarion-Ledger. The Delta-Democratic Times used to be a great small paper under the Carters, and an OK paper under Freedom. Now it's pitiful under Emmerich. He really seems to think his readers are really stupid -- I've read some of the most contemptuous pieces in his papers that I have anywhere in the state. I remember a column about Colonel Reb by his *education* reporter (in Greenville or Greenwood, I forget which) that made me blush to the roots in embarrassment for the poor woman because it sounded like it was written by a sixth-grader. Kind of reminds me of the slavery-wasn't-a-big-deal column Wyatt gave an award for; let's just say I wouldn't consider that "sophisticated" writing or reasoning. Being a small paper, or having meager resources, is no excuse for superficial journalism, as my team proves on a regular basis. I kind of wonder why you haven't asked me how I judge "sophisticated" reporting. You seem a little too attitudinal on this topic, not seeming to actually want to engage, but to prove me wrong somehow (on a topic that's going to be hard to prove me wrong on. Everyone knows how pitiful the Ledge is). The questions you ask are very telling and, frankly, you're tiresome everytime you come on the site, as a result.

DonnaLadd

Feb 27 2006

The frustrating thing about the C-L for me is that I know some downright brilliant people who work there, and the sheer inertia of idiocy manages to pull the entire paper down anyway. It needs new management. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 27 2006

I agree, Tom. The problems are from the top. I've mentioned already that I heard two different editors say in public that people did not want to hear more than sound bites about the last mayor's campaign, that they didn't want the whole story. That their minds were made up, regardless of the facts. They are infected with stankin' thankin', and no one seems to give enough of a damn to do anything about it.

DonnaLadd

Feb 27 2006

"undocumented immigrants"?? They are also known as "illegal aliens" to most folks. I think the term "illegal aliens" originated from the fact that they are here ILLEGALLY.

Curt Crowley

Feb 27 2006

That's kind of an ugly term to use for an entire group of human beings. I'm sure that the Native Americans thought all the white men were "illegal aliens," too, but that doesn't mean we go around calling ourselves that. You can refer to others as if they are real human beings, and still have an intelligent debate about immigration. In fact, I suspect it's the only way you can.

DonnaLadd

Feb 27 2006

Ok. So how do you judge sophisticated reporting? I was not trying to set guidelines for your opinions. If it came across that way, then I should do a better job of articulating my thoughts. ;-) My prior statement was not an attempt to prove you wrong or right. I just wanted to see how The Clarion-Ledger compared to other papers with respect to the percentage of subscriptions coming from the paper's home city. And you're far more familiar with newspaper than I am, so I thought you might have some examples of good journalism and good reporting that the folks at The Clarion-Ledger might want to emulate.

sny guy

Feb 27 2006

"I'm sure that the Native Americans thought all the white men were "illegal aliens," too, but that doesn't mean we go around calling ourselves that." I would assume they were more candid in their language. Local words for 'invader' would be one that would come to mind, among some less pleasant words, possibly including (gasp) racist terms and attitudes. However, it is a fact of life (or was for the many thousands of years of recorded history until the age of poitical correctness came upon us) that victors write the history books and thus most native-born citizens of the US do not consider themselves invaders today. That said, it cannot be denied that there is a large-scale immigration mainly from mexico and northern central america occuring which is tacitly allowed by the federal government - which creates some ambiguity about how illegal they really are. Based on the kennewick man studies and other archaeological and genealogical evidence it is far from impossible the various indian tribes are 'illegal aliens' themselves and may have displaced other paleolithic peoples deep in pre-history. If DNA analysis can proivide more answers, reparations from the various indian nations to the survivors of any pre-paleo-indian group (there amy be some in Tierra del Fuego) may be in order.

Scott Thomas

Feb 27 2006

I ,for one, am extremely suspitious of the choice of words used by political people with agendas. 90% of the time the term "illegal aliens" is intentionally used to imply these people are less than "natural citizens".

Sherman Lee

Feb 27 2006

Or ... lesser people. Glad you're here, Sherman Lee. Where you been all these years!?! ;-)

DonnaLadd

Feb 27 2006

Sherman, agreed 100%--thanks so much to you and Donna for backing me up on this issue, which has become a serious pet issue of mine. I used to use the term "illegal alien" until I realized that it was a double-dehumanization--no human being can be illegal (only acts can be illegal), and "alien," like "foreign," is a word we use to say that someone is not part of an in-group. In truth, all an "illegal alien" is is an undocumented immigrant--the lack of documentation is what makes her or his presence "illegal." So what we have are two terms that say the same thing, one that represents condemnation and exclusion, one that merely states the facts. On another local web site, they're calling my friend Bill Chandler a "socialist," "welfare pimp," and "SOB." I know him well enough to know that, considering the source, he would consider all three labels compliments. His mentor, Cesar Chavez, taught him well; if he wasn't being condemned by the privileged and the powerful, he probably wouldn't feel like he was doing his job. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 27 2006

I still say we collect a mountain of them and go throw them on the Clarion-Ledger's sidewalk downtown in the city that barely reads their paper. ;-) I may be in the minority here, but here goes: I don't know what's in the Northeast Ledger, but the Hinds Ledger is not that bad to me. It reminds me a little of the old C-L - you know, the pictures of JPS students who received awards, etc. My problem is that the information is only distributed in Hinds County, so no one else in the state gets to see the good stuff. Let's see... Mississippi Link/Clarion Ledger....ad.....hmmmmm. Can you say "enigma"?

LatashaWillis

Feb 27 2006

"I used to use the term "illegal alien" until I realized that it was a double-dehumanization--no human being can be illegal (only acts can be illegal), and "alien," like "foreign," is a word we use to say that someone is not part of an in-group. In truth, all an "illegal alien" " Actually the terminology almost certainly can be derived by actually looking at a 'green card.' "Resident Alien" is a specific legal term describing the status of a non-US citizen, and I suspect Hollywood can be blamed for the pejorative nature of the word Alien. A clear lack of sensitivity towards (undocumented) extraterrestrials in numerous movies over the years probably has blinded us all to the true meaning of the word. I think we all need to rise above our Hollywood-induced prejudices and embrace the word Alien not as a bad guy in the Alien series of movies with its graphic stereotyping, Independence Day or some other mass-market flick, but as a legal description of a non-citizen of this country who has never been to outer space, does not have a spacecraft or advanced technology, and does not represent an invasion from outer space. As far as 'illegal' I am not sure if non-resident alien covers both those who are here legally (i.e. with a visa of some sort, or visa waiver program) as well as those currently in criminal violation of one or more laws regarding entry or continued presence in excess of visa validity in the United States.

Scott Thomas

Feb 27 2006

The smear sites that refer to Chandler as a "socialist," "welfare pimp," and "SOB" should be ignored. They traffick in defamation and character assassination and are not worth the time it takes to read them. That being said, Chandler is being attacked because he also is in the business of character assassination. Everytime he opens his mouth, he can't help but play the race card. He makes stupid comments like "Mike Lott is a racist," and "these laws (immigration bills) always come from white men." Chandler is branding people like Lott as racists, with no facts to back up the claims. This is character assassination--pure and simple. It's what people say when they have nothing substantive to add to the debate. The smear sites should not attack Chandler's character, nor should Chandler attack Mike Lott's character. Both the smear sites and Chandler should be left on the far margins of the debate (where they belong). Your average Mississippi voter isn't listening to them anyway. Most Mississippians have already awakened, smelled the burritos, and made up their minds on this issue.

Curt Crowley

Feb 28 2006

"Mike Lott is a racist," and "these laws (immigration bills) always come from white men." Can I assume, Curt, that these are direct quotes, being that they are within quotation marks. Can you provide links please?

DonnaLadd

Feb 28 2006

Here's the precise (and often repeated) quote: “I don’t think it’s a coincidence that all the anti-immigration bills were authored by white male legislators,” Chandler said. http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/comments.php?id=8450_0_22_0_C Also, "When Mr. Lott attempted to restore order, the illegal alien activists became even more rowdy and disruptive, with all of them yelling at the same time, using profanity and calling the legislators "racists". Bill Chandler, MIRA's President, was equally rude and boisterous. This is a man who is a familiar face at the State Capitol, repeatedly lobbying our legislators on behalf of the "rights" of illegal aliens who should not even be in our country." http://www.mfire.org

Curt Crowley

Feb 28 2006

Does the Clarion-Ledger count "illegal aliens" in their circulation numbers?

sny guy

Feb 28 2006

Why don't you ask them, snide guy?

DonnaLadd

Feb 28 2006

Mr. Crowley, can you source the second quote? Your link does not lead to the quoted article. Also, from what you quoted, Bill Chandler did not call Mike Lott a racist. Rather, "activists" called "legislators" racists. You'll have to do better than that. As for the first quote, why is it out of line? Or is it your claim that it IS a coincidence that white males introduced the legislation? As far as I can tell, white males are the only people who give a rat's posterior about illegal immigration, led by the grand pooba of them all, my close personal friend and bowling partner Bill O'Reilly.

Brian C Johnson

Mar 1 2006

"As far as I can tell, white males are the only people who give a rat's posterior about illegal immigration, led by the grand pooba of them all, my close personal friend and bowling partner Bill O'Reilly." Typical far-left thinking. Anyone who is concerned with national security is concerned with our porous border. We simply cannot allow anyone who wants to enter the country to come in unchecked. We also cannot allow people to enter this country who have so little respect for our laws that they don't bother to enter the country legally. This is a national security disaster looking for a place to happen. As far as trashing white males, until the Democrats learn to appeal to the F-150 voters, they will never win another election. Keep making fun of white males, and the Republicans will laugh all the way to the ballot box.

Curt Crowley

Mar 1 2006

Curt, I am familiar with the Capitol event and MFIRE's representation of it is simply wrong. Among the group MFIRE accuses of being "boisterous and using profanity" were several Roman Catholic clergy members, all of whom will agree that the MIRA constituency was well-behaved and interrupted the speaker only after they were repeatedly passed over during the Q&A portion. And the "you'll have to appeal to the hee-haw crowd to win elections" works only as long as they hold political power; it's been diminishing ever since the segregation era, and pretty soon it won't be a factor at all. Even Bush knows that the "wake up and smell the burritos" vote isn't worth courting, which is why he's proposing worker visas. The Republican Party needs the Hispanic vote in the midwest, Curt, and everybody knows it. Hispanics are now the number one non-white ethnicity in the country, and Mississippi is one of the few states where they're still underrepresented in the voting population to the point where they may be demonized with relative impunity--but the legal Hispanic population in Mississippi is growing exponentially, so the times, they are a-changing. Which is why you'll never see Haley Barbour at one of these meetings: Because he's not stupid, and he knows which way the wind is blowing. As a MIRA member, I know Bill Chandler and most other members of the MIRA constituency well, and I have never seen them "boisterous." I suspect they were angry after listening to so much race-baiting rhetoric from these knuckle-dragging ideological heirs to the CCC, who even attacked infant children of illegal immigrants--calling them "anchor babies" who should be denied basic health services and deported, in violation of the U.S. Constitution's definition of citizenship (which rightly refuses to punish children for the immigration policy violations of their parents). I know that kind of rhetoric angers me. However we feel about immigration policy, and I certainly recognize that there are many good arguments to support better border patrols and better INS policy enforcement, we should not do so with an eye for punishing desperate people who have committed no crime greater than avoiding a bureaucracy that would reject them. We all came to this country as "illegal aliens." It seems odd to me that so many folks who believe that Leviticus should be the bedrock of the moral life of our nation ignore the better parts of the book. Like chapter 19, verses 33-34: "When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt." However you feel about undocumented immigrants, please do not dehumanize them or treat them as enemies, as MFIRE does. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Mar 1 2006

"The hee haw crowd"?? In case you didn't notice, Kerry-Edwards got their a$$es kicked all across the south. Democrats generally took a beating in the last election. Why? It may have something to do with the fact that those on the far left refer to the major voting bloc as "the hee haw crowd." Again, keep on making fun of NASCAR Dads and Security Moms. The Republicans will love you for it.

Curt Crowley

Mar 1 2006

Curt, as a white southern male I fall into the "major voting bloc" you refer to myself; I am certainly not a wine-and-cheese Democrat. By "hee-haw crowd" I refer to people who are actually more likely to vote for a candidate because they support the values of the Old South, with all that implies. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Mar 1 2006

(Who make up, I am convinced, the heart of both MFIRE and the CCC--but not a majority of white Mississippi voters, and not even a majority of white Mississippi conservatives.)

Tom Head

Mar 1 2006

Curt, you're such a charmer. You know how voters under 30 in Mississippi trended in the last presidential election, right? Certainly not overwhelmingly Repub. Just sayin'.

DonnaLadd

Mar 1 2006

We'll see who's right on this issue next election.

Curt Crowley

Mar 1 2006

We'll all hold our breath until then. Lighten up, Dude. It really is OK that there are people out there you disagree with you. Makes life more interesting. ;-D

DonnaLadd

Mar 1 2006