It's all very lovely. Except for, you know, the fact that it evidences how severely injured newspaper publishes are today (click to embiggen):
Ouch! We're still waiting for newspapers to adapt to the online world. NYT tried a pay-for-content system, then reneged after readers balked. A few months ago, rumors began to surface that they were reconsidering -- yet again. Would you pay for news online?
I would not pay for newspapers online anymore than I would pay to see over-the-air free TV online. Although, I do pay to get better reception via cable TV and my university library pays for online newspaper access that provides extra benefits for research purposes.
I think newspapers are having a similar panic attack to what movie theaters had in the 1950s and 1960s when they were being put out of business by free TV. Pay movie theaters and motion picture producers figured out how to survive, but they had to change what they were doing.
Likewise, similar to free Web sites today, in the 1960s most TV stations could not get enough advertising revenue to survive and they were lobbying Congress to allow over-the-air pay TV! In the UK they imposed an antenna tax to fund the BBC. (This was a decade before cable TV became common.)
However, free TV stations survived and became highly profitable over the last several decades given only advertising revenue. (Although TV stations now have to adapt again to compete with cable TV channels.)
If I knew a business model for how newspapers will stay free, I could become a millionaire. I don't know of one, but I do know that advertiser supported newspapers will thrive in the future even if the old grey ladies go out of business.
As an aside, the real reason newspapers are going out of business is because Wall Street types have been buying them up and taking huge loans against the value of the newspaper. This huge debt-load is killing newspapers faster than the internet.