SNIP
>
>I think this is all a good thing. First of all, papers need so much advertising revenue that more than half their bulk is adverts now. So we pay to cut down MORE trees, to keep the papers in biz, so they can cut down even more. A vicious downward spiral Personally I can't wait for their demise. Like you say, who actually needs them (other than for, as Tamar says, the "feel" of a wad of crisp paper in the hands at the breakfast table or on the bus/train), with all the other media that are around today (which were not when a paper was essential). Take this "experience" away from a generation and what they've never had they won't miss.

I agree they will disappear, but I will still be sad to see them gone.
And I agree that the next generation won't miss them.
But it will be a different kind of "news" than we are used to today, too, because it will have little in the way of local news and it will all have the scrutiny of corporate lawyers who will ensure that nothing "risky" is said. You can be sure that "naming names" and "anonymous sources" will happen far less, if at all.

>
>They can still get advertising revenue by downloading advert pages to your "daily tablet" (of whatever form) for which you subscribe.

Right... until a pre-scan is developed to remove it. How many people will wilfully download advertising?