[Chad Fairbanks]

Not just the internet, but also because they pretty much suck.

The option also exists for this to be done online as well. This idea is certainly not limited to just actual print media, but online as well :0)

[djf]

What might be good is if you could tie them together. A small paper with say, four or five articles, pointed to a large, online edition that was much more expansive. If you had a small printed edition with a few hard hitting articles, you might be able to drum up enough subscription revenues to support a website.

[Maigrey]

I have a feeling that, even if you ran the "paper" as a centrist media, that most of the people who you deem as part of the paper's demographic would appreciate the lack of bias that most of the news that is currently being shoved down their throat.

The other issue that is causing problems for the paper media are the decline in advertising and advertising rates being charged to cover the media's costs.

See, papers don't recoup their funds from the paid subscriptions, but from the funding they receive from the advertisers. (In the editing room, the advertisements are laid out 24 to 36 hours ahead of time before the news is laid out! So, this should give you an idea what drives papers. (Hint: it's not the writers....)

So, if you wanted to make it succeed, as a public company, you;ll need some driven sales force people. (gag, I know...)