I've never read David Greising's business column in the Chicago Tribune, but I just came across a surprisingly-compelling article about how it's been phased out of the paper. It's an article about columnists in general, and whether a small but loyal readership -- and an undeniable quality -- should be enough to sustain something even when the general readership ignores it. I admit there's a slight bias on my part toward thinking that a small but loyal readership is a nice readership to have, and the mere existence of this weblog may be the only reason I think the article is interesting. Nevertheless, I found it interesting. Especially:

"Greising may not have had a mass readership, but I find it hard to believe he didn’t have a core of readers who looked for him every day. I know several people who read him who had hardly ever glanced at the business section before Greising was there; and, indeed, many of those folks read Greising but ignored the business section’s uninspiring offerings. While my market research methods may not be as sophisticated as the Tribune’s, I wonder if they are more journalistically sound. There ought to be a place in newspapering for gut judgments, for recognizing quality and sticking with it, for finding a way to convince readers that you have a star on your hands. Maybe that kind of effort is reserved for the likes of “Ask Amy.”

And what if Greising had a small but loyal core readership? Isn’t that worth something? After all, not everything in a newspaper has to appeal to everyone. Put a little something for everyone in there and pretty soon you’ve stitched together a readership."