I remember the classic black and white movies with the newsboy yelling "EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT!" I remember movies and shows that spun newspaper headlines that drew attention to the screen. I remember the first college mornings I spent with The New York Times, learning more intricacies of the New York Yankees than I ever wanted to know. But pretty soon, when it comes to newspapers, all I have are memories. And I don't know if that's a bad thing; somehow okay. But it is definitely sad, and the new versions of newspapers on the Internet create more complications than I initially thought. Newspapers used to be the source of in-depth and credible reporting. I got to know the writers of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (especially the sports section) by name, style, subject, and nuances. Part of me will miss the tangibility and familiarity of such newspapers. But most of me will accept the saved space, speed, myriad editor options, and other technological advancements of online newspapers. Time.com recently published an article written by 247wallst.com, reporting on the unstable state of ten of the major American newspapers and the likely foreclosures of most of those ten, within a year and a half. Already, several nationally recognized newspapers have declared bankruptcy or relegated themselves to purely online distribution. The Rocky Mountain News in Denver closed, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which is owned by Hearst Media Corporation, transferred exclusively to online publication after 146 years in print. Hearst also owns The San Francisco Chronicle, which will likely close if it can't make enough cuts. Visit:- https://www.yankeejournal.com/ Along with them, 24/7 includes details on The Philadelphia Daily News, The Minneapolis Star Tribune, The Miami Herald, The Detroit News, The Boston Globe, The Chicago Sun Times, The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and The Cleveland Plain Dealer. . The authors reached these sinister conclusions by analyzing "the basis of the financial strength of the parent companies [of the newspapers]." But I wonder if the disappearance of newspapers is really a bad thing. It is surely somewhat depressing when I consider the common nostalgia felt by people long associated with the environment. My father was born in 1952, a time when everyone expected the same newspaper boy to drop the morning paper in his daily entries. My father says he misses those times (even though he gets most of the news from the internet). I imagine that many people who grew up without the Internet will share that feeling of loss. Newspapers have been staples of American journalism since near the beginning of the country. According to historicpages.com, written by Phil Barber, the first newspaper appearance in the US occurred in 1690 when Benjamin Harris published Publick Occurrences Both Foreign and Domestic in Boston. But a long tradition has not slowed the gradual shift of the public to newspapers. "The decline in overall newspaper circulation began in 1989 and has continued at a relatively stable rate of just under 1% per year," reports journalism.org. One of the main reasons for the decline is the Internet, that progressive technology that has wasted no time in dismantling the markets, production and influence of almost all forms of popular media in the last twenty years. As a steady march toward ubiquity continues, many of those outlets have realized the importance of using them (music, magazines, television, movies, video games, even comics, all have ventured into the online realm). Once broadband speeds become commonplace around the world, the wide selection and immediacy of downloadable music will be presented to an even larger audience, although it has already caused many people to abandon CDs altogether. Software downloads have left record companies in extremely precarious positions with their revenues declining annually for the last decade or so. According to financial and shipping statistics from the Recording Industry Association of the Americas, in 1997 the industry accumulated $ 13,711.2 million in total shipments. In 2007, the number dropped to 7,985.8 million, a decrease of about 42%. I have contributed to that fall. She continued to do so. I contributed to the mass piracy problem that was so pervasive in the early days of file-sharing software by downloading countless songs and albums without payment and without a second thought (although, like many, I have since come to realize the immorality of those shares and currently buying digital music). But I'm still contributing to the decline by purchasing music online, avoiding revenue streams that only exist in retail store acquisitions (eg packaging). But I still miss some aspects of CD ownership. I miss the stylized letter sheets; I miss the album cover as an incubus image of a sun rising on an empty sunlit beach; I miss seeing art as two shy fish drawn by hand, red and yellow on disk; I miss being proud when I see a collection of albums on a shelf. But I'm willing to ditch CDs for the portability, ease of use, and immediacy of digital formats, not to mention the space saved. Clicking is faster; the purchase is faster; listening is faster ... Web coders constantly improve the quality and availability of online television, driving viewers away from the TV and onto their laptops, costing networks valuable ratings and ad dollars, especially in the coveted group. demographic from 18 to 34 years old. Even in 2003, comscore.com's "comScore Media Metrix" (the site claims it is "the standard in Internet audience measurement") found revealing statistics on Internet use in the 18-34 age group. Peter Daboll, President of Media Metrix, says: "The fact that more than 75 percent of men ages 18 to 34 in the US are using the Internet seems to remove at least some of the mystery of declining viewership. television among this precious demographic. " But I'm in the "precious demographic," and I prefer to watch TV on big screens while sitting on comfy couches, with bags of popcorn that don't mess up the keyboard. I'm not very fond of the buffering, loading, fickle internet connections, and other distractions that are inherently found in watching online shows. I do enjoy some of the comforts of being online, but naturally I don't like the inconvenience. The same goes for newspapers. I like the conveniences that the online medium offers, I don't like the inherent downsides. For example, I'm a statistic from a recent Nielson Online report on the 15 Most Popular Newspaper Websites of 2008. The New York Times came up with the highest number of "average monthly unique users" (the average number of different computer users who visit the site at least once in a given month) at 19,503,667. In January 2005, BusinessWeek Magazine reported that the Times' subscription number was 1.1 million. 19 times (sorry for the pun) more people in 2008 viewed The New York Times digitally than 2005 subscribers to print. But I was one of an estimated 1.1 million during 2005, when a college course required a subscription to the Times. And when I started reading, I realized that I prefer the hard copy. I'm unplugged, untouchable. When I'm connected to the Internet, I can check email, browse Facebook, talk with friends. When I'm away from the screens, I read. I just read.