Why's the book section always the fall-guy?

Davina Morgan-Witts, BookBrowse editor

Over the last few years we've seen virtually all newspapers cutting back on their book coverage and, according to the National Book Critics Circle (NBCC), all but two have now closed their standalone book review sections. One of the remaining bastions of the book world is the Washington Post which first introduced the standalone 'Book World' section to its Sunday edition in 1972.  But this literary stalwart appears to be crumbling.  According to the NBCC's blog Critical Mass, a reliable source at the Washington Post says that "among the budgetary recommendations new editor Marcus Brauchli is making to his board is the elimination of 'Book World'."

In response to this news, the NBCC have started a petition and are asking for signatures.  If you would like to sign, write to savebookworld@yahoo.com before the 23 January deadline.
 
The standard reason cited for cutting back on book coverage is a lack of advertising revenue; but that logic seems a little questionable - after all is the sports section supported by advertising from the sports teams featured?  Or, for that matter, is the foreign news section sponsored by overseas governments? 
 
Most of us know that the vast majority of newspapers are hurting financially at the moment.  Falling print circulations (as people move to finding their news online) plus the crumbling economy have hit newspapers where it hurts most - in their advertising revenue.  Even when a former print advertiser moves their advertising budget to the online edition, the newspaper's bottom line suffers because online ad rates don't come close to the nosebleed prices that newspapers have been able to charge for advertising in their print editions. 

So cuts are necessary, but why does the book section always seem to be the fall-guy?
 
Just last week, the National Endowment for the Arts published encouraging figures showing that the percentage of Americans reading literature is now a little over 50%, a significant increase over the 46.7% reported in 2002; and the percentage reading any sort of book is a little over 54%.  That represents about 120 million Americans who feel that, to a greater or lesser degree, books are part of their lives.  Wouldn't it be a wee bit short sighted of a newspaper to cut coverage that can attract such a literate, educated audience simply because a direct return on investment between that particular section and overall advertising revenue can't be found?

Update Jan 28 2009: It has been confirmed that Book World will cease to exist as a stand alone section as of mid-February. More about this in News.