I did not mean to imply that local newspapers are suffering harder losses than national newspapers. In fact, the opposite is true (see the paragraph: “In possession of a seemingly dependent readership, community newspapers have lost circulation at a slower pace than has, for example, the Los Angeles Times…”) My point is that despite a slight advantage over mass-market newspapers, local news entities are, indeed, suffering with the rest of the industry. However, they are also threatened by their inability to compete online. They must rely almost solely on the print edition because their websites are so under-utilized, and they just don’t have the resources to focus on another medium. Local newspapers, therefore, are trapped in a limbo that could mean sudden demise.

And yes, I agree that internet access in rural areas is inevitably worse than in the city, which is why rural newspapers are faring the best: their niche market is still intact and without competition.

Thanks for reading.

I’ve heard many other local newspapers editors indicate that readership remains strong at the local level, even as our metro market cousins see significant declines. Certainly revenues are a problem, but it’s a problem everyone is experiencing (not just newspapers). Indeed, our revenue problems are nothing compared to Twitter or YouTube, which lose millions of dollars every year.

Also, rural areas of the country are among those places in which poverty is a growing concern. Internet access, particularly the high-speed Internet access needed to really utilize the tools available on the web, is a far cry from what can be found in urban hubs.