Becoming so intrinsically reliant on media being delivered over incredibly sensitive and vulnerable protocols of transmission (more vulnerable than your paperboy and his delivery route every morning) doesn't make much sense to me.
I know online media is great, dynamic and full of selected content you want to read...but it's delivery relies on almost ten times as many nodes of transmission which is again reliant upon tons of electrical equipment (which don't like electromagnetic interference, bad storms or lightning strikes btw) as the number of nodes of transmission / equipment needed to bring you a physical news paper.
Of course there can be equipment failures at the press house, or the place can burn down or blow up or the paperboy is a crackaddict, but I think we can all agree, that there are many more opportunities for something to go wrong, when it comes to receiving the media online when compared to receiving a physical newspaper.
Also, you can archive physical news papers, clip, frame them...it's all been printed for you, and you've paid for it (well technically, you're paying a small percentage of a cost that has been heavily subsidized by the businesses and organizations who advertise in the paper but the point still stands none-the-less). With online media...it seems like now you're going to have to pay to view, and pay to get a printed copy (use your ink, use your paper, and use your electricity) and the advertisers are still subsidizing the cost of this media getting to you.
Seems like they're just looking for new ways to get you to pay more money for the same old product...same old game.