Actually, they could remain alive, though sharing interest with on-line media, which is faster and more flexible, just as plenty of us enjoy real books even though we do a lot of research and other work on-line now.

The picture is larger than you may conceive it. Yes, demographics, but more than that. The media (including these two papers) are obviously liberal, as are most sources in the media (a community that has been well left of the public for ages, despite dishonest denials or failure to grasp the obvious by many on the left, whose complaint if they were more honest would be that they aren't reliably or far left enough). The public (especially the intelligent, learned public) is often repelled by this and the rare right media outlets are simply finding an underserved, deliberately neglected market. (That is what made Rush Limbaugh famous and wealthy and how Fox was able to become known, through controversy in defying the liberal media convention and harsh orthodoxy.) The media are continuing to die (and that includes the over-hyped-and-subject-to-conceit “new media”) in terms of respect among the public, especially the intelligent, learned public.

Next, you have hordes of younger people who are uninformed and don't wish to be, and in particularly don't like or want to read. You can't sell reading material to people who are uninterested in reading. (So many people on-line simply play music or videos and their reading is limited to chat, text messages, and on-line dating profiles and the like. Most blogs are of little to no real substantive value, either.)

Then comes the economics of the newspaper (and news magazine — does anyone still read those leftish tabloid, flippant-intellectual-low-level rags? We have nothing like the Economist here in the USA) business with a dwindling market and now facing an economic downturn overall, in which newspapers are often considered discretionary or at least one of those personal expenditures that can be reduced or eliminated when money is tight.

This is exactly why the Post is slowly going the way of the dodo. They simply don't understand how to compete in the new world. The Post would be smart to cut a lot of its newspaper staff, turn itself into a weekly/bi-weekly mag and concentrate on their web presence.

The demographics are clear. Newspapers won't be around much longer, at least not in their current “paper” form.

he obvious, Occam's Razor answer is he was failing to promote the Chosen One of the Media, which while a sin when committed by the Right is apostasy coming from Left Media.

And history is very consistent in showing that sinners are punished much less severely than apostates.

Can someone just let me know when one of the assumptions for Froomkin's dismissal pans out? I realize launching various complaints based on unconfirmed information is all the rage these days, but eventually I do like knowing what really happened instead of letting guesswork become unchallenged Truth.

Andrew Sullivan says it's because of his complaints against Neocons and torture.