Internet is Killing the Newspaper 397
jose parinas writes "MediaDailyNews is reporting that 2005 will go down as one of the worst newspaper years in history, and 2006 doesn't look promising. Online media is continuously generating more readership and ad dollars, but currently only accounts for 5% of total newspaper revenues."
What do you expect? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What do you expect? (Score:2)
I wish it were a transition. These guys are dying. The reason is simple, they will not server their customers. They continue to publish crappy articles usually against any decent enterprise and as such lose their readers daily. More and more they have become ads only. I can search ads without these turkeys.
Re:What do you expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
Quality stuff will always survive in some form. I'm least worried about the WSJ, which is probably the smallest of the three papers I read. As you'd expect from a business-oriented newspaper, they got their business model straight from the get-go, and they've done very well with it - as of 2002, they were the most popular subscription service on the Internet.
- Obviously a happy subscriber to WSJ.com, but nothing more.
Re:What do you expect? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not so much that the articles are crappy (although they often are), it's that the newspapers publishers do not grok the internets. It's the "horseless carriage" mentality, but now it's "online newspaper". Ask yourself why would a newspaper post one single picture of an event on it's website? The answer: because it's expensive to
Re:What do you expect? (Score:2, Interesting)
Death for some... (Score:3, Interesting)
I live in Orlando, Florida. The local newspaper is called the Orlando Sentinel, a.k.a. the Slantinel. Their agenda-pushing sometimes makes our mud-slinging presidential candidates seem mild. In an internet full of freedom of choice, the Sentinel will most likely lose. People read it just because it's really the only local paper we've got.
When everyone gets all their written news online, it'll die because it's so bad. I doubt it will be the only paper like this, and I dou
Re:Death for some... (Score:4, Interesting)
They may be slanted but at least they're focused on news that's important to you. (And while they exist, you can at least pretend that someday they might investigate Hollings for his Mouske-ties.)
Re:Death for some... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Death for some... (Score:3, Insightful)
Then some new wave of local news bloggers will form a syndicate that borrows from blogging and wiki technologies. There will be a demand for a single site that can link you to people reporting on news in your area and that demand will be filled.
It's not hard to imagine that someone would report local news as a hobby and as a community service and even make some money by having their local hardware store sponsor them. The golden rule in blogging is to find a niche and dominate it, so this news form would a
Re: Adaptation (Score:3)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/express/ [washingtonpost.com]
It's a small free newspaper, containing only brief news stories. It's got all the sections of a normal paper Top Stories, World, Local, Classifieds, Entertainment, and puzzles. But it's a mini-newspaper about half the physical size of a normal one so it's more suitable for reading on a crowded train. I can usually read everything on my way to work, and
Re:Death for some... (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a newsflash. This has already happened. Many newspapers in the US are owned by big companies that own multiple papers. Same thing with radio stations. I live in Colorado and even the two big Denver papers, The Denver Post and The Rocky Mountain News, are owned by the same company. I hope that the death of the newspaper will
Re:What do you expect? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What do you expect? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not saying electronic delivery isn't much less of an expense (both in terms of resources and energy to make and deliver them), I'm just saying that it's not like anyone is denuding virgin forests of 200-year-old trees just to make a few bird cage liners.
Re:What do you expect? (Score:5, Informative)
I won't deny that you have a point of newspapers using recycled paper, but I live in an area that has most profits generated from pulp mills and logging. Simply put - the trees are not on a farm, they're first-growth temperate rainforest trees. Although selective logging has been introduced, the logging companies and pulp mills are interested in profits, so many areas are clearcut when they can't be seen by the public (remote areas behind mountains, etc).
Newspapers do use a lot of resources
Re:What do you expect? (Score:3, Informative)
They may not be on a traditional farm-type piece of land, but they usually are replanted after harvesting, and the same location is re-harvested whenever possible. So the grandparent was right when he stated that pulpwood is a farm crop.
And I don't see what clearcutting has to do with it. As long as it's not a eyesore (and you state that it's usually done in remote areas) then it generally makes sense to harvest
Re:What do you expect? (Score:4, Informative)
The company is called bowaters [bowater.com] and owns several million acres of property. It is some of the best hunting lands in the state for pretty much all our local wildlife (and feral wildlife also). While yes, they clear cut if they aquire new property, and always clear cut when they harvest, the replanting of the trees is about as dense as can be sustained and is GREAT for wildlife - again one of the top hunting areas in the state with both large mature animals taken and a large yearly bag limit (and it's quite expensive to hunt as well).
They allow independant and govt forresters to view thier managment and make suggestions - they even usually follow them also.
I don't know what company you are near, but it is insane to purchase old growth forrest for wood pulp. It takes specific types of trees to make and old growth forrests are not very dense. Pulp manufacturers only purchase them if they need more land, and in many cases what they do with the land is beneficial for the local wildlife in the long term. Basically old growth is horrid for paper pulp - though it is generally good for expensive lumber because of the size of boards that can be harvested.
About the worst that can be said is that the place stinks real bad when you are not used to it and the gasses released, while not damaging, make a fog so thick that you can not see past the end of the hood on your car (literally). When conditions are right it can creep out over the interstate and has caused some of the largest wrecks in US history.
The real question is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The real question is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Then again, ma
Re:The real question is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The real question is... (Score:5, Insightful)
The New York Times and the Washington Post have lost their press access?
Or did you mean that both papers have never been critical of the current administration?
Re:The real question is... (Score:3, Funny)
Quick, replace your tin foil hat! The foil taped over the window is coming loose! The spy satellites are going for your rectal implants!
Newspaper != news paper (Score:5, Insightful)
Already TV news is less about news and more about entertainment. The paper is getting more like that too. There are so many media channels etc competing for peoples free time (== entertainment time) that the news has to be entertaining and gripping rather than factual.
Re:Newspaper != news paper (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, newspapers are going to have to provide something besides stale wire reports and three-paragraph news articles. More focus on local news and issues would be a start. Forget the national news; most people already get that from other sources long before it's published in a newspaper. Stick with the local stuff, the things people won't find anywhere except their hometown paper. If you are going to cover a national news story, go beyond the four Ws. Have your reporters do some more in-depth analysis or investigation. Basically, give people something they can't find ten thousand identical copies of at news.google.com.
Re:The real question is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Informed by which metric? Shouldn't the government radio address be all I need?
Newspapers only print a particular set of wires, and they primarily exist to make advertising money. This is not concordant with my interests, so for me they are less informative.
I had an inane Toronto Star telemarketer yell at me once. I told h
Bad news for everybody (Score:5, Interesting)
What's worse is the effect this will have on all media. TV and radio stations already have very slim news staffs. They rely on newspaper stories as the starting point for many of their own stories. As do magazines. And this will affect blogs as well, as they usually write about what's been published elsewhere.
News starts with reporters, and most of them work for newspapers.
More people might prefer to read their news on the Internet, but with newspapers declining, there simply won't be as many stories to read.
Re:Bad news for everybody (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you seriously believe that people all of a sudden lose interest in what's going on in the world and in their community just because some highly paid NYT reporter is laid off from his cushy job? Because photographs are made with $200 digicams by amateurs, instead of $8000 SLR cameras wielded by Pulitzer-prize hungry press photographers trying to find the artistically m
Too make matters worse, ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Immediate Access (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Immediate Access (Score:2)
Re:Immediate Access (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah! And on some special websites, you can read the same news several days in a row! Sometimes after months!
Re:Immediate Access (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Immediate Access (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Immediate Access (Score:5, Interesting)
The formatting of news web sites seem to leave a lot to be desired. For one, look at CNN.com, for any given page, the actual article is less than 1/4th of the page, the rest is split between an asinine site navigation system and ads.
Ads in a newspaper aren't anywhere nearly as intrusive as on the Internet. No newspaper ad bounces, flash, shake, spin, spawns popups or any crap like that. Newspaper ads don't try to leave cookies, tracks IP or otherwise grab and store information without telling me. I block all that stuff, but it's still a surprise when I use other computers.
Re:Immediate Access (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Immediate Access (Score:5, Insightful)
Television is no substitute for a newspaper, at least not if the newpapers were doing their jobs correctly. TV news simply doesn't get you the depth that you get in a newspaper. Part of that is due to the nature of the medium and part of it is because the people producing news programs are more interested in flash than in content. (Yes, I know it's because that's what sells. Consumers are generally dumb and the TV folks are happy to go that route rather to trying to be decent journalists.)
The internet is a good substitute, provided you are smart enough to read reputable sources. (In other words, the same basic people as the ones who print newspapers, only putting the text online instead.) But that doesn't seem to be the draw away from the printed papers. Also, I (and many others) would much rather read a physical piece of paper than a computer screen. I work at a computer 9+ hours a day, typically, but I hate reading significant stretches of text off that screen. I prefer something solid. I can't really articulate why, but I just can't manage the computer screen well.
Re:Immediate Access (Score:2)
Re:Immediate Access (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, I always end up finding a few things to read and usually wind up spending a couple hours with it. It's quiet and calm and a nice change not to be sitting up looking at a screen for another couple hours. Sure, it may not be great for up-to-the-second news, but I don't care about that anyway. There's always some neat articles about local stuff, vacations, homes, etc. Browsing slashdot and the rest gets old after a while and it's a nice change of pace to find some unexpected neat thing that *doesn't* have to do with technology, Google, MS, Apple, or My Rights Online--and to do it in a nice, quiet, analog fashion.
Oh yeah, one other great thing about newspapers: no animated ads.
I still pay for the paper. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure it's the Interenet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sure it's the Interenet? (Score:3, Interesting)
Who cares? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Informative)
I just set my Yahoo RSS reader to list their news, business, community, and offbeat sections and it gives me the top ten stories for each main section of the paper (at least, the ones that I'm interested in). I can scan the headlines and brief intro to see if I would like to read more in depth and I find much more relevant local news that way. I never wast
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple. Because you can read it while you're waiting for or sitting on the bus. I wouldn't be suprised to discover public transit to be the number one motivation behind newspaper sales.
Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, as internet delivery matures, it'll no lo
Newspaper is killing the newspaper. (Score:5, Interesting)
Take the New York Times. Between that Blair guy and now Miller, they've been shown to be nothing but a hack paper. Any newspaper that did not immediately point out the numerous lies of so many British and American politicians with regards to the ongoing war in Iraq falls into the same boat.
Intelligent people aren't going to pay money for ads and bullshit stories. And it's intelligent people who tend to read newspapers.
Re:Newspaper is killing the newspaper. (Score:2, Insightful)
Really? A typical story is probably written at a reading level to accomodate a 10 year old. The intelligent people forego the shallow drivel of the syndicated press and get the information as close to the source as possible. Which would you rather read, the science and tech section of your local rag, or the links directly to the trade publications and institutions that you fin
Re:Newspaper is killing the newspaper. (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, that's no excuse for newspapers to report blatantly false information. Going back to the example of the Iraqi invasion, every newspaper of any credibility should have torn Powell's UN presentation to pieces. It has nothing to do with politics. It just has to do with the fact that they're
Re:Newspaper is killing the newspaper. (Score:2)
Wow, another
Re:Newspaper is killing the newspaper. (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the lousy quality of the reporting isn't the only thing that's killing the newspapers. I think that they are in a death trap of reader selectivity. Since most people only believe what they want to believe, do you really expect them to pay to read other stuff, too? From that perspective, it's only natural for the Internet to slaughter the newspapers. Not just because the Web is faster and cheaper, but because search engines make it easy to find the stu
Re:Newspaper is killing the newspaper. (Score:3, Interesting)
If it's a balanced and comprehensive understanding of current issues you want, it's a mistake to rely on any one source of news, any one perspective--if only because people will attack you for your choice. For the record, I'll spend my time flipping between the NY Times, the Economist, Salon, the Village Voice, the NY Observer, NewsMax, CNN, and Fox News, and I find that's a salad that works for me. But no matter what you're reading, approach your sources cri
Re:Newspaper is killing the newspaper. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Newspaper is killing the newspaper. (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree whole-heartedly!
Of course, this is an observation that is new to the "mainstream" of our generation. Many people in my parent's generation would only "trust" one source. Indeed, most television news programs and newspapers still advertise themselves today as "your most trusted news source" as if it is a good thing to only focus on one!
I feel this is a reflection on our increased education, more than it is about the internet, or even the qualit
Re:Newspaper is killing the newspaper (Score:5, Interesting)
On the flip side, a major disadvantage of the web is mutability. How do I know that link to the story on the 18th is actually the same text that ran on the 18th? Heck, how do I know that you and I are reading the same article today?
For an interesting, behind the scenes look at things, one company I worked for had a news site, and part of the content came from Reuters. Part of the tagging in the news stream indicated "updated" versions of the same articles, that you were REQUIRED to replace.
If you pay attention to breaking stories on Yahoo, you can see the articles morph and change during the day...
Efficiency (Score:5, Insightful)
Yellow pages are dying horrible deaths too, and I'm loving every minute of it. Just look at how these online yellow pages are trying to force ads and sponsored listings on the first page, making it ridiculously difficult to get local results you really want. Then look at how quickly you can find something via a search engine.
Re:Efficiency (Score:5, Insightful)
Investigative reporting. That's still where the newspaper outpaces all other forms of news.
The hardcopy might go away, but newspapers have their own websites.
Re:Efficiency (Score:2)
Investigative reporting. That's still where the newspaper outpaces all other forms of news.
The hardcopy might go away, but newspapers have their own websites.
You mean getting second hand information, publishing it as the truth and publishing a very small retraction when your severely wrong?
Re:Efficiency (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that they don't do that now, and probably won't in the future. Doing so to a professional degree would certainly cause severe annoyance to various advertisers and politicians. Soon enough ad space isn't bought, and press credentials are revoked. Then they're really fucked.
Re:Efficiency (Score:3, Insightful)
While there certainly is less and less investigative reporting (much to my dismay, reporting current events is something for the AP wire), it does still exist.
I can think of two recent examples from my local paper alone. One is how DHS lied about how many people die crossing the border and how their numbers don't match up with the actual recorded deaths. Congress actually ended up using the newspaper's database to show how DHS was playin
My dad used to read the paper every day (Score:2)
Re:My dad used to read the paper every day (Score:2)
He checked the websites of the newspaper instead of purchasing the paper, reading the paper, and dealing with the mountain of paper he would accumulate each week.
Reading in real world ... (Score:2, Funny)
Giveaways (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Giveaways (Score:2)
Mark Shuttleworth really should have a talk with the advertising department of The Age...
The two aren't mutually exclusive (Score:5, Interesting)
Take a breaking news story (HP buys Compaq is my favourite example). We ran a BREAKING NEWS thing on the site immediately. We ran a follow-up story later that day with industry reaction (such as it was) also online. The next morning we had the customer comments/expectations story online, while most daily newspapers here were only just running the equivalent of our first story.
By the time our weekly print edition came out we had a full round-up of comment locally plus international expectations etc for a more rounded view.
That's the best approach I feel. Break news online (with attendant email alerts, SMS alerts or whatever you've got going) with more detailed relfective stuff in print.
This isn't new - print had to cope with radio beating it to news and TV (film at eleven!) doing what we couldn't do. What print does well is take a step back and offer a critical analytical assessment. In depth stuff. Well, that's what print SHOULD do well.
The two aren't mutually exclusive - print and online can co-exist quite nicely thank you. You add immediacy to your print edition with online. You add depth to your online edition through print. Different readers are served in different ways.
Re:The two aren't mutually exclusive (Score:5, Insightful)
The Internet is great for instant information, opinions, and huge amounts of both. But it is very spotty when it comes to analysis, SNR, and summary. Typically, it takes a little time for information to be properly filtered and recommunicated. This delay allows print publications time to catch up and this material can still be placed on the web later. Fundamentally, the act of publication forces information to be cut down, crap to be thrown out, and resources to be focused. There are papers that do this well and some that do it very poorly.
An excellent example is the Economist. I can find virtually every piece of information from that publication through some other channel before the print edition hits a stand. I do not, however, have the time to summarize, anaylze, and edit as the Economist does. Nothing in that publication is revolutionary or, in fact, beyond what I could generate. But it saves me countless hours of research.
Yep (Score:2, Funny)
Three uses (Score:2, Funny)
2. Cover head in rain
3. It's better than nothing when you run out of TP.
**stop cutting down trees for what ammounts to voyeurism and blatant stupidity!***
Tom
If it kills the NYT... (Score:2, Insightful)
[/opinion]
Terminals in Stalls (Score:2)
I read the paper regularly (no pun intended), but only because I'm something of a captive audience, and the paper is just right there...
Someone please use the Netcraft meme (Score:2)
Same old song (Score:3, Insightful)
I read all about you (Score:2)
-everphilski-
Needs more cowbell... (Score:2, Funny)
"Growth" is flat, so try innovating (Score:5, Insightful)
The death is greatly exaggerated, it's a rebirth (Score:2)
My first thought was, where's the money going? If the paper revenue is shrinking, the online advertisement market should pick up, within margins of waste reduction. The eyeballs and wallets behind them should be worth the same amount
Re:"Growth" is flat, so try innovating (Score:2)
Newspaper have to evolve (Score:2)
Is the newspaper still a practical business model? (Score:2, Interesting)
Unfortunately, doing so completely wipes out their subscription base. And I doubt advertising alone will be enough to sustain high-end staffs such as (despite an earlier criticism of the paper in this fee
is it really the internet (Score:2)
So just what in the heck... (Score:2)
See, nobody thinks of these things before they haul off and invent something like teh interweb.
What are we supposed to do with all this bird poop?
Oh, wait - there's plenty of blogs to fill. Never mind.
Good (Score:2)
In other recent news.. (Score:2)
Interesting that classified is UP in newspapers (Score:3, Interesting)
There are times I think a newspaper is great -- on a train, on an airplane, or when I want to sit outside in the sun with a cup of coffee. So for relaxing news delivery. But most of the time, web sites (or, even better, RSS feeds) are just so much more timely. And with RSS, I can get the headlines from a few sources, so when one site cock-blocks me by invalidating my BugMeNot login (cough, FY NYT!), I can read the article elsewhere, or just be content with the title.
So many reasons for this (Score:2)
Dead Tree Edition (Score:5, Interesting)
It's the dead tree versions that don't make as much sense. Lots of people don't want yesterday's news. But no reason that a well written newspaper can't write a web version just as well.
And the thick Sunday version with the sale ads and magazines are still popular. So they don't need to retire the presses. But basing your entire business model around delivering paper to porches, yeah, that'd dead.
Too biased, too many ads (Score:2)
Then I read the news reading some of the interesting bits. Then I research the data on-line and see that it's just part of the story. I feel bad for the people who just rea
Internet is Killing the Newspaper (Score:5, Insightful)
Radio threatened the Newspaper and took it's lunch money.
Broadcast TV beat it up.
Cable News kicked it while it was down (and then beat it up some more)
The internet is just finishing the job. The Newspaper has been killed by 3 previous mediums, and now a fourth is doing it. Newspapers will never go away, but they will never be what they were in before the 1950s again. As others have pointed out, Newspapers aren't what they used to be as the quality has declined and they are trying to more and more like gossip rags and 24 hour news channels which get printed once per day. Solid investigative reporting would keep them alive easily, instead we get AP wire reprints (which I already heard summarized on the radio and saw analyzed on TV). Now I can cut out the middle man and read these things off the wire online. Why do I need the paper for that.
And with wire stories like "New flash: President says he will name a new supreme court nominee at some point in the future" (there was one somewhat like that recently), I can't say much for their reporting.
Papers need to reorganize themselves and the kind of things they write/print if they want to become anything more than another local magazine. I'm sorry, but Newspapers are not in a good state right not (then again, neither is TV news).
The NYT is not "the paper of record" anymore, Edward R. Morrow and Walter Cronkite are gone from the in front of the camera. The entire news industry seems to be in a major crisis. They lost sight of reporting by realizing that they could just be the first to tell you something. 24 hour news channels hastened that problem. The internet and cell phones have taken it to it's logical conclusion.
I hope this all turns out well in a few years. I was getting mad at many of the magazines I used to love (gamer and computer magazines including GamePro, Nintendo Power, EGM, PC World, etc.) have fallen into the same trap so I've stopped reading most of them (I can get that info online for free, faster). I recently started reading a good magazine full of intelligent, insightful, and well researched articles: Forbes (yeah, different genre of magazines, but still). Newspapers (and TV news) need to go back to the same thing. They are all in a format of "Let's take that 1 minute news summary we did at the top of the hour and try to stretch it to 30 minutes" kind of "journalism", merged with "infotaiment" like Entertainment Tonight into one large affront to the intelligence of everyone.
I hope things turn out well. In the mean time, I will just continue to avoid more and more news sources as they get worse and worse. Some are still good. NPR had FANTASTIC, JOURNALISTIC coverage and analysis of Justice Robert's hearings. I learned a TON about the process and many other things by listening to their clips of the questioning with intelligent analysis and explanations. They're not always perfect, but they are one of the few left who even seem to try.
that could change if... (Score:2)
Well, duh (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Write a Song (Score:3, Funny)
Does this include account Free (as in beer) papers (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, I read a paper newspaper daily. The Metro (metronews.ca) is a free (ad-supported) newspaper that offers me as much news as I can read daily - 45 minutes on the way to work - with less ads than the major (not-free) dailies. Ok the journalism may not be as highbrow and neutral as such publications as the WSJ (US), the Times (UK) or the Globe (CA) [/irony], but frankly I am capable of researching a story if something catches my eye. And it has a crossword and sudoku. It also focuses on the one aspect of news that is not well covered online which is my local (down to what happens on my street) news.
The paper is not dead, nor will it be for the forseeable future, but the industry is undergoing (albeit more quietly) the same changes as the other major media - music and tv/film, and they need to find a new business model that can compete with the technological and revenue changes of the day.
The metro has a readership of over 400,000 of Toronto's 20-35 (read disposable income) population. This is the kind of targeted marketing that Google is milking vast VC on right now. National bloatpapers may have had their day but the print-paper industry is far from dead. They just need to wake up.
Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with any news dissemination organ, be it online, tree-based or otherwise
Epic 2014 (Score:3, Interesting)
Can't trust the papers... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the Information Revolution: the Revolution is greatly improved access to the information. People are more educated now than they were 50 or even 20 years ago and can make informed judgements. They don't need some "journalist" to do it for them. This is quite appart form the fact that today's journalism is extremely poor compared to yester-year's.
I don't buy papers because I know that I can't trust them to bring me news in an unbiased, non-politically or commercially influenced fashion, or full of Tabloid rubbish like British newspapers. I accept the risk that the news I learn via the Net can be from the "uninformed" masses and mitigate this by using many sources so I can judge for myself where the "truth" may lay.
I won't even read over people's shoulders anymore.
For at least the last 10 years, newspapers have been good for only one thing: the ink used in newspaper presses is fantastic for removing streaks and smudges from my computer monitor!
Sad but True? (Score:3, Insightful)
Come to that, the internet is trumping *every* other media source when it comes to raw news. I can't Google search for related terms on my cable box. I can't run a Truth-or-Fiction fact check on a radio. People will tell me something they saw in the paper, and I'll say, "Oh, yeah, that was on [insert one of 20 news-sites here] yesterday!" In the age of RSS-feeds, plus a shell script I wrote to scrape them all, it's getting to be the next best thing to being psychic. In fact, even my library card usage is down - but I've downloaded and hoarded a slew of E-books!
Re:Internet Killed Frankenstein tonight (Score:2)
Re:Newspaper is getting too wide anyhow (Score:2)
it's "old" by the time you read it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Making Excuses (Score:2)
Re:Making Excuses (Score:4, Interesting)
Any paper who wants to survive in the future needs to invest heavily in online content and NOT just make their website exactly like the printed paper. If news is presented online in a convenient format, they will have no shortage of page views and ad revenue. Otherwise they will shrivel up and die. I suspect most papers will survive but those that are stubbornly resistant to progress will die in the next 10 years or so.