Well, at least they know exactly what we've been complaining about.

instead of being a tool of the government, papers ought to take the lead in reporting atrocities such as, for instance, all the discrepancies, lies, exaggerations, fabrications, secrecy the government engaged in on and after 9/11? No wonder trust of media is at an all time low.

In a free society, no stone would have been left unturned. One example: there was ZIP ZILCH ZERO investigation done into why 7 World Trade Center, a building that sustained minimal damage on 9/11, completely collapsed, a feat never before seen except in the twin towers taken down (suspiciously again) that same day, even though many buildings have been hit by planes and many buildings have had huge fires in the past without collapsing.

Instead of real journlism we get an endless parade of feel good victim stories. Instead of hanging the treasonous Bush Cabal by its evil petard, we get stories on Britney and Koby.

But I know, the papers are all owned by people who are delighted the USA is becoming a police state. The better to control us proles.

The news media in general lost my interest years ago when they moved from journalism toward cheerleading and regurgitating verbatim what they were instructed to say/print by the very people and organizations which they were supposed to be critically investigating/reporting about. I found I could no longer count on any investigation or documented corroboration in their reporting. It was a source of great ire and sadness for me. I was angry that the media had abandoned any attempt to hold government accountable. I was saddened that I had lost the treasure of being informed by a generally trusted source; one which I had come to know in childhood. There was a point as a young adult I felt it necessary to read at least two and often three different newspapers in order to remain abreast of matters of interest to me, as well as to seek verification that what I read in one newspaper wasn't just their unsubstantiated opinion. I actually feel betrayed by the current general lack of critical journalistic investigation. I had lost an old friend. I was without a trusted source of reliable, objective information. In time, I have found other media outlets which still practice investigative, critical journalism. News items not (or vaguely) reported by the "mainstream" media can at least still be found if one makes the attempt to seek it out. Most people (in my opinion) do not. I have also found it both ironic and reasonable that the Wall Street Journal will often be more truthful (in it's news reporting; their opinion pages are another matter entirely) than the other contemporary daily newspapers I have access to. It's ironic because the Wall Street Journal has, for me, always had opinions which bordered on the absurd, which would have initially led me to believe that they would slant the news to reinforce their opinions. In general I have found this not to be the case. Their rationale, in my opinion, is that they know their target audience are people of means and power. These people need the truth in order to make rational decisions. I usually don't post my opinions, but this is an issue about which I have very strong emotions. It is not that I feel people should think and feel the way I do about issues. It is that they should at least have the truth and the facts present by which to form their opinions. The media (in general) has abandoned us all in this respect (in my opinion).

Well-thought-out and interesting article. But another angle to explore, perhaps in a later article, would be the Washington Post's 'Express.'

I was going to college in Chicago at the time RedEye was released (before it was free to all, it was free on campus) and in grad school in DC recently. The RedEye seemed to me as it was described in the article. But the Washington Post has managed to create a truly newsy commuter paper in 'Express.' Granted, there are plenty of news-obsessed interns floating around offices and newsrooms in DC, but the Express is read quite widely among 18-30 year olds in DC. I imagine other papers could find similar success with a free daily aimed at younger readers more in line with 'Express' than 'RedEye.'

It astounds me that as newspapers have faced more competition in reporting national news that their response has been to cut local news reporting to save money. This is the one area where they have an advantage. People want to know about crime in their neighborhoods and the latest large developments approved for their areas. The article reported that this is where some of the small upstart papers have placed their emphasis. I certainly hope so!

Maybe papers like the NYT can translate 10lbs of ads in the Sunday edition into a lower price. $5 for a Sunday paper is actually quite a lot of money.

University of California Santa Cruz takes part in programs with daily newspapers at some of its residential colleges like the one I live at (Porter College). In the dining hall, students can pick up NYTimes, USA Today, San Jose Mercury, and I believe the San Francisco Chronicle. Many students come to the dining hall alone so they can grab a paper and sit and read. These are also students who I believe wouldn't spend time in their rooms logging into Salon.com or NYtimes.com, and most definitely wouldn't pay to have their own subscriptions.

I think major factors in youth reading news is convenience, cost, and time. We aren't going to go out of our way to read up on "dull" stories, we certainly won't be paying for it, and we simply don't have the time or regular schedules to set aside part of our days to reading beyond what we required in our classes.

The dining hall program and RedEye seem to be positive steps in attracting readers in a way that is both convenient and free. Considering that the students at my school read regular versions of the daily papers, I would challenge Red Eye to cut out the fluff. If they are circulating in accessible locations where their target audience have little to do but read (such as public transit), I think they would be suprised as to just how big people under 20's attention span can be for hard, educational news.