Fact is, the newspapers are just plain unpopular.

The “news” folks don’t like the American people, and the American people don’t like them. It’s pretty much that simple.

Next we’ll have bailouts for lousy cooks and boring comics.

Advertisers really don’t care if people per se read newspapers. They are simply seeking the least costly and most effective way of selling their products and services. Also, how does one define “habit and community?” Is that another way of describing elderly people? You know something: they have a disturbing habit of dying off! How many more subscribers can these papers afford to lose? Is the number 30%, 20%, or just 10%? When is the tipping point reached when dead tree newspapers no longer make any financial sense? And when did I ever say that newspapers will totally disappear? Those that survive will move to the Internet.

Are there any statistics showing the ages of new dead wood newspaper subscribers? I bet few of them are under the age of 50—and perhaps less than 5% are 30 years old or younger.

I share your view that technology is getting better and cheaper–and that the Web can be a more powerful way to find and process information. But you are missing two basic data points: it is unusual for small dailies to die, partly because they have loyal advertisers and readers that form a protective community. Technology may be a better alternative, but those devoted readers and advertisers will around for quite a while. Humans do not automatically and immediately jump to the most efficient option as soon as it presents itself. You ignore demonstrated human behavior and miss a key element in your analysis. It is habit and community that keeps them reading printed papers, especially in suburbs and small towns. The Web has been a facet of the average consumer’s experience since 1995. How come these local papers still exist 12 years later?

Secondly, your analysis treats all papers as equally suffering from the emergence of the web. I think the web socks big-city dailies (not national papers like the Wall Street Journal or USA Today) and not local papers. Your analysis doesn’t address the differences in the structure of the media marketpalce.

Nope, I suspect it may be only a year away. I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but I personally witness numerous people starting to go on the Internet to order pizza or other food. They are admittedly under the age of forty. Nonetheless, I can easily imagine a “paradigm shift” that could occur at any moment. Computers and Internet access are continuing to become less expensive—and ubiquitous. I can normally find a Internet ready computer easier than a newspaper. And finding information concerning a local car wash should take mere seconds. Searching a newspaper will most assuredly demand a few minutes of my time. Isn’t using the Internet far more sensible? Your premise also seems to be based on the notion that only “elites” are truly computer savvy. I know a young lady, however, who just recently turned 29. She is so shallow that she was utterly unaware of the Japanese attack on Pearly Harbor. And yet, she orders products off the Internet on a consistent basis. I don’t think she has looked at a newspaper anytime in the recent past.

My statement was about the present. In most markets, local papers–small dailies and weeklies–are the most cost-effective ways to reach local readers. Yes, someone can put up a web site. Some have tried. But the sites usually fail, and they fail for you allude to you in your next sentence: “those people living in the area have to be initially encouraged to visit such a web site.” Good luck, there is an over-supply for web sites competing for public attention. More importantly, the target readers for local papers are as active users of the Web as their children are. The cut-off seems to be around age 40.

Eventually, the paper product may vanish. But that time is still decades away, despite all of the Internet euphoria. Papers linger on coffee tables, get carried around and shared, and sometimes stories get pinned to bulletin boards. If you own the local car wash, those are advantages. It is not superior technology that wins the day, but the collective judgments of millions. Those millions are very reluctant to learn new things, like use a web site to find out if the car wash will be open on Christmas Eve. They will just look in the paper. Finally, the local paper already has their trust–and the new web site does not. Again, I am talking about small-circulation dailies and weeklies that cover a neighborhood or a slice of rural county–not a big metropolitan paper.

I strongly disagree. The Internet can also be “localized.” There is little to stop someone from putting up a website limiting advertisements to local businesses. Those people living in the are merely have to be initially encouraged to visit such a website. In the not very distant future, I do not see the need for a paper product.