My experience is exactly the opposite of this. I spend probably the same amount of time reading as I did 20 years ago, but with Boing Boing, Romenesko, Wormtown Taxi, etc., the chances that I’m reading something I’m *really excited about* are much higher than they were.

The haystack is unfathomably bigger than it was, but it’s so much easier to find the needles that the overall amount of junk is irrelevant.

What is “junk” but stuff that does not serve our need or interest.
Perhaps people are buying less news papers because, what most larger newspaper print, fails to serve our needs and interest. Why would anybody want junk in their lives? According to the results released by the Audit Bureau of Circulations, it seems less and less these days.
Disclaimer: NOT ALL NEWS PAPERS ARE JUNK. They may simply have to eliminate it from appearing in their product.

For one, we don’t like to pay for information anymore. The Internet has opened a world of free exchange of ideas and information and shelling out money for a newspaper susbcription is becoming an increasingly outmoded way for us to spend our money. We also have more things competing for our attention on a daily basis — we want our news easy to access, simple to digest and we don’t have time to wade through what those of us in the newspaper business have for centuries been telling folks they SHOULD read. The Internet, much to the nail-biting of many an editor, has allowed consumers to ignore what they don’t want to read or what isn’t presented to them in a way that they can digest. The readers are now choosing content. I don’t think that’s all bad.

I think there will always (or for quite some time) be a place for print journalism, but it will never hold the place it once did. Understanding how people process information and how to get it to them in a way they can use will be key for any news agency. The “eat your brussel sprouts” approach, just isn’t going to work anymore.