Newspapers have been having a hard time with the Internet. Readership of the ink on dead trees editions decline year by year, and instead of taking any responsibility for the lack of appeal, they blame it solely on the Internet itself, although I see a few signs of change.
Our local paper, the Roanoke Times, has been adding new faces to the line up with writing that does not neatly fit the "news" model of olden times. The RT has a great weather column that I read regularly now, and they just did a week long story series on some high school students who went storm chasing in the Midwest--a kind of blogging on dead trees, but a lot more interesting than reprinted AP stories.
Meanwhile, as Internet advertising continues to be very profitable for many Web sites and ad brokers like Google, the New York Times has decided to charge for content with a $50/year subscription. Huh? It seems to me that the NYT has a wonderful opportunity to take a Google-like approach to ads and make a bundle--I suspect a lot of companies would pay to be able to place an ad on the pages of the New York Times. Instead, they have decided to choke off readership by making everyone pay in advance to see anything.
Another national paper I read regularly has just started requiring registration, so I've stopped reading it. The registration is annoying if not dangerous from a privacy issue, since you don't have any control over what they do with the information (yes, you can lie and put false information on the form, but that bothers me too).
I remain convinced that there is an important role for newspaper organizations in the future, but more change and more innovation is going to be needed, or we will start to see some papers fail.