For most print mediums, circulation is more important than sales. Because higher circulation generates more Advertising revenue, which is higher than sales.
But they can't give a newspaper/magazine away, because that would bump them to a lower category for which advertisers pay less.
The solution is to sell as cheap as your desired advertising demographic allows, and incurs lots and lots of "loss".
That is why even in the USA (land of the people-will-grab-anything-not-bolted-down) some newspapers still have that coin+trust box for newspapers.
My father told me that when he served for our national army back then, soldiers just left their weapons alone in front of the train station while they were having a coffee before going into the train.
When you interact more than twice with the same people, Game Theory says it is better to act honorably. At 2 interactions it is roughly balanced, and with a single interaction it is better (as an individual) to cheat. These assume balanced payoff/penalty, but changing the penalty only works to a certain extent and humans are very bad at evaluating the payoff of low-risk high-penalty actions, essentially becoming used to the risk after a while as they learn from repeated actions that they don't get caught (until they do).
So, the question is why repeat interactions have gone down. I guess larger communities, and better transport means just in terms of regular day-to-day you don't have many repeat interactions, and this changes mindsets of people inclined to crime in terms of what they think they can get away with, at least to start with.
It also explains to some extent the distrust small communities have to strangers, where they are not used to living with that regular stranger-danger that people in cities constantly deal with.
IQ scores are falling and have been for decades, new study finds:
Whatever message you wanted to get across drowned because of the Breitbart quote.
They then extensively massaged the data to make this difference disappear, which is what yields the headline. They did provide perfectly valid justifications for such, including the fact that IQ testing data was missing disproportionately often from brothers where the brother who had data available was of a low IQ. They thus proposed that the high heritability of IQ would then suggest that the missing data is probably disproportionately weighted against IQ, so that's what they did.
Nonetheless this massaging of the data opens the door to methodological problems. It enables researchers to choose the factors that they consider most relevant and to determine effective weighting for such. You will tend to find in this scenario that individuals who have the preconceived notion of 'x' end up choosing factors that show 'x'. And vice versa for those who assume 'y.' This isn't necessarily even malfeasance, but simply the fact that trying to control for a practically infinite number of possible confounding issues is as much an art as a science, and preconceived notions are going to end up being reflected in what one chooses.
For instance my bias is self evident and if I were going to pursue this sort of balancing I would certainly be sure to try to control for factors such as increasing paternal age, fertility assistance, and other things which can have negative effects on IQ. Some studies have even connected higher IQ parents to various disorders including autism which may mitigate against the missing IQ data bias. Controlling for these things is important. The reason that these researchers neglected them is not out of malfeasance, but because you can come up with a practically infinite number of things you need to control for. And so peoples biases end up reflecting the issues they find important.
The ultimate point is that I think the most impartial idea is to look at the data alone, so much as possible. This study made some fairly extreme changes to the data. Of course if my biases were different, I'd probably be singing a different tune. Isn't social "science" fun?
 - https://www.pnas.org/content/115/26/6674
Let's quote the same institution (Swiss Radio/TV)
TL;DR: If you have legal residency in Switzerland, they'd rather let you serve your time outside of prison; but without residency, you'd probably leave the country if they don't put you in prison. Maybe blame Schengen but it seems most Swiss would rather have borders that are faster to cross...
> The number of foreign detainees has increased significantly. 30 years ago, 56 percent of prison inmates were foreigners, most recently 71 percent. Weber says: "The legislator has increasingly introduced alternatives to prison for Swiss prisoners. I'm thinking of charitable work or electronically supervised house arrest. "
> However, such measures would only be suitable for people with a low risk of escape, ie persons with a secured, legal stay in Switzerland. These are mostly Swiss, but not foreign offenders resident abroad.
> Exactly the proportion of such criminal tourists has recently increased sharply. Over the last decade, they already account for the majority, 52 percent of all inmates. The society has become generally more mobile in the last 30 years, the same applies to offenders, the criminal law professor. "You can travel cheaper than before. So it is more likely that they go from, for example, Eastern European countries to Switzerland for a few days and then travel back."
For example, in my city, they are building new pavements. They are building them high enough so a crazy Islamic guy can't run into pedestrians with his car (like one did in France and in Germany).
As a Swiss citizen, I have the right to say I am not happy with that without being accused of racism!
Of course you are welcome here if you are intelligent and respectful (like all the US people I have met here).
This is true only if the peoples of a country refuse to mix and to seek a common national civic identity based on peaceful resolution of disputes and respect for the rights of minorities, whether cultural or religious.
It remains true that one thing no democracy can survive is a large fraction of citizens with contempt for the values that make self-government possible: respect for the rule of law rather than of strong men; a desire to help people who cannot return the favor, to list a few. This does indeed go to your "belief system" point.
But here in the US anyway, I'd suggest most of the rot of the civic belief system has been grown right at home.
If I were a Swiss, though, I would not leave my rifle, or any valuable, around in a Swiss train station if Italians are around. Or English, French, Germans, etc.
I wouldn’t be afraid if there were a group of Japanese though.
We’re just not as civilized.
BTW, what do you think of Salvini? Switzerland chose not to be in the European Union and it was our best decision ever IMO. It's like a startup: it's better to be lean and agile.