James Rainey of the LA Times finds that the conjunction of the decision by Detroit's two daily newspapers to reduce the days of home delivery, and the American Society of Newspaper Editors vote to take "paper" out of its name in April, indicates an embrace of "the shift of many readers and advertisers to the Internet," Rainey notes.

But a shift in newspaper delivery could have more serious implications for the industry as a whole.

How much longer will newspapers be able to actually deliver the news? Rainey wonders, as does the rest of the industry. The Internet is where many believe the news industry is headed, as evidence by the Christian Science Monitor's decision to go online-only and print a single Sunday edition.

Detroit's papers argue it's better to alter their delivery system than to "further cut the news staffs." The move will save millions for the papers, owners said.

But the break from the 400-year-old delivery system, Rainey notes, is the kind of move that there's no going back on.
Halting delivery services, or ending print publications, would lose the "old and faithful readers who still covet the printed word," he says, who feel a "visceral connection to print," and aren't necessarily technophobes.

The Detroit move is a gamble, Rainey says, that readers will stay with them during the off days, whether by purchasing the paper on their own or visiting the papers' soon-to-be expanded and improved web sites.

"This is something you live or die with," said investigative reporter Jim Schaefer. The "hope and pray" attitude that newspaper people take on for the future of the industry is far too common, Rainey says, and it's not proven to keep jobs.

If the industry is struggling in reaching enough people via home delivery, Rainey argues, then what makes newspaper executives think that other people will go out and buy papers?

Source: LA Times