Seems to me it would be cheaper to fold the paper copy and keep the online copy.
But, if nobody goes to the online site, I guess you’re boned either way.
That does seem counterintuitive.
Here's how someone, possibly employed by the website saw things when the idea of shutting it down was first discussed:
While high-level print editors were taking sleek black towncars to and from the office (and everywhere in between, including, on at least one instance, from DC to New York), this was a staff who slept on grimy couches while reporting on the road; forking out their own funds, at times, just to produce good work. The disparity in work hours, in pay, in resources—it was comical. And it was only telling that not so long ago—let’s say five years—one high-level company executive had to be corrected about the Website’s URL: no, Newsweek.com wasn’t the same thing as the internal Newsweek intranet.
So maybe it's a cultural/tribal thing. The snobs at the magazine don't get and don't care about the web and their webserfs.