Do people care about the absence of newspapers?

Carr’s article surprised me because I thought the statement that newspapers are dying was a fallacy. However Carr pointed out that the revenue of print newspapers is declining, so newspaper companies tend to discard print newspapers and turn to digital sites.

My question here is that are digital sites really that lucrative? If they are, why aren’t paid online newspapers common these days? If digital sites are lucrative, why did the article we read last week indicate that the most revenue still comes from print newspapers rather than online newspapers? 

Carr pointed out that he doubts whether readers care about newspapers disappearing, and I am also asking myself this question. However, the important question is how can newspaper companies continue to make money from print newspapers? Two points of view are illustrated as follows.

First, consumers’ reading habits will determine the future of print newspapers.

If most revenue of newspapers comes from print newspapers, it means that there are a significant number of readers who are used to reading newspapers. However, even if readers’ habit change to reading online version, I cannot see why newspapers companies cannot charge for online newspapers as they charge for print newspapers.

Secondly, putting reading habits aside, according to inter-media agenda setting, newspapers are indispensable for television news. Newspaper companies are news providers, so the value of newspapers is not only for readers but for other media. Newspaper companies can charge television stations for using newspapers in the news. For example, television news stations read newspapers headlines to their audience in the morning.

 In conclusion, for newspaper companies, the revenue should not come from the “format” of the news but from the “content.”