As a journalist, I try not to pretend I know something when I don’t. I don’t know what the future holds.

That said, there are various scenarios for a positive future. Here are a few.

1) Newspapers aren’t doomed; there are just too many of them. There will be a shakeout. Those that are left will be stronger, because fewer competitors will be chasing the remaining ad revenue. This is, in fact, the New York Times’ strategy for survival — to be “the last man standing” among major national papers.

2) Online does an awesome job on national and international, but a less good job of filling the need for local information. Thus news organizations with an INTENSE, LOCAL focus — whether they be print, online or a combination — might have a sustainable future.

3) Online advertising begins to be a significant enough revenue producer to support strong news efforts.

4) Professional news organizations are increasingly supported by — even owned by — non profits.
St. Petersburg Times is a prototype. A variant of this would be partnerships between universities and local communities to own and operate news organizations. There are a few of these around the country already.

5) Professional news organizations are supported by government subsidy — it works in UK with the BBC, and in Scandinavia.

6) Committed journalists become like a lot of writers, actors and musicians, waiting tables to support the habit while they hope to strike it big.

7) When pigs fly scenario — the public finds out how lousy it is not to have reliable information and realizes it has to pay professional journalists what they’re worth.

Negative scenarios

You will have no trouble coming up with these on your own.

You are the editor of a daily newspaper in a city whose economy is dominated by a major chemical company.
A controversial and highly toxic chemical contaminant was recently found in fish in the river that runs through the city, leading to national media attention and claims that the company has polluted the river and endangered health and safety of residents.
Scientists working for the company carry out research and publish — in a peer reviewed journal — a paper purporting to demonstrate that the contaminant is a chemical byproduct of fire — and is produced in internal combusion engines, fireplaces and grills, as well in the company’s chemical processes. The paper points to the conclusion that the company may not be responsible for all or even most of the contamination, and also — since the contaminant is so widespread in the environment — the danger to human health has been exaggerated.
The paper is immediately controversial. Saying it understands why there is reluctance to believe the research, the company contracts with a prominent academic chemist (Dr. X.) from one of the nation’s top universities to independently review the work.
The day the contract is announced, the reporter who covers the chemical company (Ms. Y) is assigned to do a story on the development. She is on deadline. She calls a high-level administrator in the Chicago office of the EPA for comment.
He is out to lunch, but the switchboard puts her through to someone else (Mr. Z). She gets his name and title — he is a much lower-ranking EPA employee — tells him about the development and asks his comment. He says:
“How could you believe anything Dr. X says about that company? He’s done a ton of paid consulting work for them.”
Ms. Y includes that comment in the story, attributing it to the EPA employee by name. The story is published.
A few days later, Dr. X calls to tell you that he has never accepted a penny in consulting work from the company, and is talking with an attorney. You check with the company, which confirms that Dr. X has never been a paid consultant.
You ask Ms. Y to call Mr. Z in Chicago. She does, and he denies making the statement. In fact, he denies having talked to her at all.
Based on what you know of libel law, analyze your situation.