I don't dispute that you may never make micropayments for content, but there is plenty of objective evidence to show that you are wrong to extrapolate that others are not willing to make micropayments for news.
Anyone who buys a hardcopy daily newspaper for 0.50 so they can spend some time reading it is making a micropayment for a package of content (tens of millions do this every day). Apple's iTunes has shown there is a large market even for 0.99 songs, even though most people realize they could download something similar for free. For people who care more about the quality of their content than spending a little money, there is much to be gained by micropayments. There are currently no good online sources of news for many specialized topics, quality original research on important issues, or local news, and all of these would have a ready market.
Why have micropayments failed so far? Its just that there has been no reliable payment system such as iTunes. There needs to be a single sign-up and account for all sources, as iTunes does for music, with a fully transparent pricing system. There should be a single price for each article, such as 5 cents, similar to 0.99 music, so that a user does not face the cognitive overhead of deciding cost/benefit for each thing they read. Note that 5 cents is 10 to 100 times higher than what advertising brings in and would be enough to support professional news organizations. In addition, its important that there should be a maximum daily charge of maybe $1, so that users understand their costs will be limited without having to count their reading. Under these conditions, I believe there would be a massive worldwide market for content. Time will tell, but what is missing is the reliable central payment body, similar to iTunes for music, that can enforce a single low price and enforce minimum quality to avoid one content provider from killing the system for everyone else by overcharging.