More even than the numbers who buy the paper it is advertising that keeps them in print.
We are seeing the end of NewsWeek, 80 years of informative Journalism.
Once on my must have list even TV is suffering because of lack of advertising.
Changes are coming, what will they be.
Trying not to be biased but I think many papers are not going to be around in the next 15 years some sooner.
It is my view, an honestly held one, news papers are over all far less quality items than even 30 years ago.
That given the chance on line reporting is the future.
At a cost but anyone producing such a paper, if it brings enough readers/advertisers, it may not need a charge.
So what will the near future look like for the print media.

Belly, I am afraid it's simply another case of tech taking over.

Just consider for a moment, how many jobs are involved in producing all those papers.

There's the tree harvesters, the truck drivers/loaders, the mill workers, the store workers and distribution staff, that's just to make the paper.

Then you have all those involved in the printing process.

We then have those involved in the distribution, selling and delivering of papers.

The number of jobs at risk is mind blowing when you think of it, and most of these can not be replaced.

Although I am young than you, I am 52, we have both seen a huge shift in our industries and related workforce, and while many changes have been good, many are very worrying.

We often receive e-bills with the notation, 'consider the environment before printing this statement', but, no one considers the jobs at risk.

No good having the healthiest planet if no one can afford to live.

We are shooting ourselves in the foot I recon.

You're missing something in your reasoning, rehctub. All those jobs have been replaced by an industry than never existed when newspapers were popular, the computer industry. Think of all the mining to extract the raw materials that go into every computer and tablet. All the toolmaking, engineering to manufacture them, the lines men to run the cables across the globe, the IT staff to run the servers, the programers to write the software, the web developers that create and maintain the websites you visit everyday.

The best part about their demise is: Before the news was controlled by a handful of a-holes with their own agenda to push. Now at least for a while, anyone with a computer can have their own say and report the truth. They can't die soon enough from my point of view!

The next battle will be keeping stinking politicians off our internet and making more rules to shut down anyone with an opinion they don't like! People like Comrade-Conroy, Obumma and the Red-Witch need to be fought at every opportunity.

I think we can blame universities, their journalism courses, & perhaps the type of people they attract. In the days of the old copy boy system, most journalists had some idea of how the world worked, but there are very few of them left. Today we have people, often girls, trained to string a few words together, but who can't understand what they are writing about.

Due to reporters who just had no idea, but thought they knew everything, I no longer buy any newspapers. Today most of these "reporters" are now captive of the press release, & produce misinformation as happily as truth.

I have given up radio, particularly the ABC, where one presenter continually stated, "I didn't know that", or "that can't be right" about the most simple, common knowledge things. Not understanding things is the norm today. With these dills in the media, there is no point in listening.

Then TV. The stations lobbied for years for more spectrum, & got it. Now they find they don't get enough advertising revenue to buy anything worth while to fill those hours. What is on is so bad, I find my TV is turned off more than it was when there was much less choice.

Even worse, overexposure of some programs has destroyed their appeal. I used to really enjoy Top Gear, when poor reception meant we only got it once or twice a month on SBS. After a commercial channel bought up old material, & ran it nightly, I no longer ever watch any of it. What was fun occasionally became extremely boring as nightly fare.

We see double hours of many programs today, with this excess exposure soon killing the program. One station has 3 consecutive hours of forensics. Just how many test tubes can any audience suffer, before the off switch becomes the most attractive fitting in the room.

Well it is my view Raw Mustard comes closest but not quite.
Rupert Murdock, what ever you think of him, has shown us the change.
And while he has always been a paper man, and a very good one, in terms of making money.
He long ago lead in investing in other media forms.
Unfortunately, for the very same reason, lack of viewer's leading to lack of advertising, that too is in some trouble.
I think we will read our papers on line on the way to work via our phones.
And that only the strongest will remain in print, and very few of them.
You can view a version of your favorite paper on line now, for free.
And it will tell you all the news.
It must, or others will, equaling less readers less adds.
Google has grown by its news as much as anything.
Maybe the future is one all papers low priced on line news site as well as individual ones.
Change is assured, in the stuggleing TV net works to.

You're right raw mustard, except, these jobs you speak of have already been created, while news papers are still a way of everyday life.

I'm talking about the future, not the past.