³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Another factor, especially for the Scotsman, must be the simple lack of quality of the content. I used to buy it but when the content rapidly went down hill I just stopped.

On walking into a newsagents, one simple glance will tell me that it's not worth buying. What am I refering to?

It's political bias; it's unbearably unbalanced; anti-SNP at every opportunity.

What the editors forget is that The Scotsman used to be a quality read, and the readership was informed. I don't want a rant against one party every time I open the pages; I want quality analysis; I can make up my own mind regarding political support. It's now just a cheap (expensive) tabloid and organ of the anti-SNP establishment, and as such is totally out of step with how Scottish society has changed over the last decade.

The Herald isn't much different. I stopped buying that as well; having been a weekly buyer, I'm now an ex-customer and reader.

So, stop insulting my intelligence, become balanced, grow up and I might come back!

#1 Couldn't agree more I feel that the slow slide began when the appointed Chris Baur as Editor [ some nepotism perhaps ? ] and that is when I stopped buying the Scotsman. I am not that political so I reckon I can see through the bias, it was just that the quality and integrity started to go downhill and to my mind has never stopped.

Sadly I have to agree with the above comments. I bought and read The Scotsman from the age of around eighteen until about ten years ago when I thought that its political bias was out of control. I switched my allegiance to The Herald and from time to time it seemed able to demonstrate an independence of spirit. That stopped about five years ago and shortly after that it transpired that the newspaper was being "leant upon" by the then Labour establishment. To its eternal shame it succumbed and is now little better than its onetime rival. I dip into both these papers from time to time but I will not buy them -whoever owns them -until there is some attempt at balanced reporting.
Like the above I have no problem in reading political comment that challenges and I am able to make my own mind up but the standards of broadsheet journalism in Scotland -with very few exceptions -is sadly lamentable at present.

To blame their demise on the credit crunch is to ignore those who have given up on a biased media.

Once in the dim and distant past,Glasgow could be rightly proud of its QUALITY newspaper the Herald.It had points of view expressed from all sides of the political spectrum , allowing the reader to assess and decide for him or herself.

Now that once quality paper is akin to a Labour Press Release - but you know that Mr Fraser, those rotten old internet vermin told you with monotonous regularity and at a time when you could have done something about it too.

Ah well! They are now no loss, although the buyout of the Scotsman by Scottish business men might yet see its survival.
Should they succeed in buying it lets hope they have an editorial policy similar to that of the dear , departed Glasgow Herald.Lets hope they encourage journalists to be honest and investigative - not the sneering spinners we suffer today.

Sounds to me as if you are all seeking excuses for contributing to the demise of the free press by not stumping up every day for a newspaper. No newspaper can afford to have a strong political bias any more - a good story is a good story whatever colour (cast your mind back to the Telegraph getting stuck into Tory MP expenses.)
The point of Douglas Fraser's article is that newspapers are struggling to monetise their web presence in the face of so much free content from the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ. But frankly, if we weren't getting our news from ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ on-line we'd be getting it from citizen journalism via Facebook etc.
All I can say is, I don't buy from on-line ads, but I do buy from newspaper ads. Not sure it's going to be enough for the likes of The Scotsman to hold onto their £40m of asset value but I'll keep buying a copy.

I buy the Herald daily.There is another in this household who reads it.
Political bias appears to be all that it succeeds in promoting.
My resented 80p per day is there keeping it afloat, I therefore feel entitled to criticise.

I think the bias and sensationlism at The Scotsman helped alienate some readers (including me), but it's a lack of content and marketing resources that has ultimately led to the big recent falls in circulation. Add to that the decline in classified ads (one reason why many bought these papers in the past was adverts for Edinburgh jobs, cars, houses) and the inevitable cost-cutting and you're into a downward spiral.

Biased opinion I can get anywhere, but well-researched, well-written news stories are harder to find.

Never has a group of comments been so on the nail. Regardless of your political views (and I want Scotland to be Independent) the political bias in the Scotsman and The Herald are simply completely out of tune with the way Scotland thinks. The Herald is redeemed to a certain extent by Ian Bell but not much else. I now frequently buy the Scottish editions of English papers because I at least understand their perspective. Whatever modern Scotland is it is not staunchly Unionist and anti-SNP. How can you sell papers to a readership who don't agree with what you say ? Doesn't make any sense from a marketing point of view let alone anything else...

The bias in Scottish 'national' papers has become so blatant that any level headed person baulks at reading them. I stopped buying the Scotsman many years ago, and the Herald more recently. The UK titles come across as rather patronising when they offer a 'Scottish Section' but as they also offer good quality global reporting and features they are a far more attractive option at present.
Trouble for the papers is, once you've lost a reader, they will probably not come back.
And all that's not to mention the execrable state of the local newspaper market; where are good journos supposed to come from?