There's a big difference between covering every tiny town meeting, and
> no coverage or condescending coverage ("where all the girls are either
> pregnant or look like they will soon become pregnant") of the suburbs
> where most of their readership lives.
Did a newspaper actually say that? If so, in what context?
A newspaper that purports to be a regional paper should cover at least
> the local 5-digit population bedroom communities, and not treat them
> as if they were a 2-digit population farming community 100 miles away.
Major newspapers I've seen, including the NYT, do that pretty well. However, they're still losing readership.
It's been a long time since I last looked through the Sunday NY Times, but
> as I recall much of its bulk was advertising.
The bulk of newspapers has always been advertising.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: With a bit of luck, local news from New York City gets covered in NY Times ... maybe. They do not do a very good job of covering local, NYC news, but they are not bad -- if a little bit of liberal bias is okay -- on national and international news. PAT]