There has been much debate over the past decade about the death of print. While, I don’t believe that print will ever cease to exist, the industry numbers based on the census bureau show that all print, except for digital printing, has declined over the past few years. Newspapers is a dying medium. My generation (I am 24) never touch newspapers, let alone subscribe to one, which means advertising dollars are being funneled away from this medium. Because newspapers are losing ad dollars, the cost of ads are decreasing—simple supply and demand. Enter new media. Google has just implemented, in the past few months, AdWords Print. This allows advertisers, regardless the budget, a chance to buy up left over space at a fraction of the cost. Because Murdoch is forward thinking in terms of new media, I certainly see that his ownership of the WSJ, in combination with his good relationships with new media, is going to help revive a dying medium. (Even think MySpace.com partnering with WSJ classifieds, scary but you get my point). Although, I am a 24 year old male, who would refuse to use a dying medium as a news source, I will certainly be more likely to not only read a WSJ under Murdoch’s ownership, but I am going to becoming a subscriber within the month.

So, to summarize, Murdoch will save newspapers and print journalists will remain in the job.

Google’s print ad service is brilliant, because it allows small businesses the ability to advertise on a national level with a budget that they can afford. This is allowing exposure to these companies that my have never had the chance. The reason for this is because a lot of companies have pulled advertising from this medium which has left unused ad space…which allows for this unused space to be sold at a lower price (hello supply and demand).

News Corp has certainly had its hands within a lot of New Media, and now that they will have control over DJ Co., I would suspect that this “dying” medium would be able to evolve.

As for “print on demand” newspapers—as I’ve discussed with many of you—I don’t see that happening. While I would love to get a newspaper that doesn’t include certain sections (namely sports) I don’t think the costs would outweigh the benefits…then again I’m not a industry expert on the matter. Maybe someone else could weigh in on that if I am wrong.

PS: Very true, Brian. I’d lie if I said I hadn’t thought of that as well!