I thought that, in the pursuit of information relating to journalism and entertainment, it would be worthwhile to point something out about readership and financial viability and those kinds of balances.

Some people say that newspapers and other news outlets are getting less money because fewer people are reading. Sometimes that’s true, but I just thought I’d provide one opposing point. Jim Romenesko, a widely-read journalism insider/gossip/news blog, posted that USA Today is about to try to reduce their newsroom by 45 bodies
via buyouts.

And, from the memo posted on Poynter, which hosts Romenesko’s blog, purported to have been sent by USA Today editor Ken Paulson (emphasis added):

At today’s meeting, we discussed the economic realties that will require elimination of 45 newsroom positions.

It’s unfortunate that we have to take these steps, particularly when our newspaper circulation is growing and USATODAY.com has been named the top news website in the country by the Online News Association. Unfortunately, revenue has not kept pace and we’re now facing the same cutbacks that so many other news organizations have already experienced.

More people reading. Better Web sites. And, at the risk of alienating a few of the many journalists who look down their noses at USA Today, I’ll say that USA Today’s Web site is great and pretty damn good at being 2.0 and not crying “2.0! 2.0!” all over the place like a lot of empty-promise-giving newspaper sites. And yet, less money. I don’t really understand it, but the people in charge of making money at news organizations (hint: traditionally not the reporters or editors) aren’t having a lot of luck.