34
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 10:
Line 10: + + + +
no edit summary
The ''Washingtonian'' wrote:
The ''Washingtonian'' wrote:
:The Washington Times has served as a reliable voice for [[conservative]] views. Its coverage of the White House blossomed during the Reagan administration, when it became a [[champion]] for conservative causes and points of view. The newspaper’s [[circulation]] has hovered around 100,000, far below that of the dominant Washington Post, which has a daily circulation of just under 700,000. The Times has never been a commercial success.
:The Washington Times has served as a reliable voice for [[conservative]] views. Its coverage of the White House blossomed during the Reagan administration, when it became a [[champion]] for conservative causes and points of view. The newspaper’s [[circulation]] has hovered around 100,000, far below that of the dominant Washington Post, which has a daily circulation of just under 700,000. The Times has never been a commercial success.
== Future Changes ==
After over 27 years from its launch and losing over $2 billion dollars, the Washington Times announced on December 2009 that they are laying-off at least 40% of its staff and will shift to mainly free distribution. Billed as a conservative alternative to the Washington Post, the paper's recent circulation was at about 85,000 compared to the Post's 583,000. The Times' main focus will now be on a national audience and local coverage will be deemphasized. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/02/AR2009120203295.html</ref>