I thought so.

Here’s the conventional wisdom for the United States:

… The heyday of the newspaper industry was the 1940s, but the percentage of Americans reading newspapers began to decline with the increased competition from radio and television. A growing population helped the absolute circulation numbers continue to increase until the 1970s, where it remained stable until the 1990s, when absolute circulation numbers began declining.

Wikipedia

Readership aging. Readership in decline. Advertisers fleeing for Craig’s List. Electronic alternatives (e.g. Kindle) improving. …

Newspapers are not a horse on which one should bet the mortgage.

But Ron Shewchuk (long time print apologist) keeps prodding the dying horse, linking to articles like this:

There is plenty of evidence to support print media’s survival:

Most of the 10 largest newspapers are gaining, not losing, circulation. Nationwide, daily newspaper circulation is 50,827,454, down .1% from a year ago, according to the Newspaper Association of America. …

While readership is declining among 18-24-year-olds, it is declining slowly. The age group may place less value overall in print newspapers, but some will continue to read them. (There are even young people who prefer listening to vinyl instead of CDs.)

Local and national newspapers are also trusted more than web resources …

The readership decline is gradual and there are plenty of people who will continue reading newspapers, at least long enough for newspapers to make the adjustments necessary to find their new niche in the mostly-digital media landscape.

The future of newspapers (and the $100 I’m going to take from Jose Leal)

larger version – flickr – Mr. Flibble

So, turns out Newspapers are going to survive. Whew!

But not many journalists.