It seems to me that the bulk of people who would have subscribed to newspapers and various magazines don't any longer because it's easier to find stuff on-line. So, why don't they write like they know that? Why recycle an A.P. story? We can find the story; we can find commentary, what we are unlikely to find is well researched pieces that help us fill in the background.
Most of the health and fitness magazines appear to re-run the same old articles over and over again. They over-emphasize exercise and supplements, and make those same old egregious low-fat diet recommendations. Architecture and housing related magazines also seem stuck, trying to communicate to us what they think is trendy. And Wired looks downright schizophrenic- the last time I read the thing, I began to wonder who, exactly, are there target audience? Extremely gullible effete men with a lot of spare cash and short attention spans?
Anyway, it seems to me most of mainstream media pretends the internet just doesn't exist; meanwhile the strongest potential customer base is already compulsively reading the stories they'll print a week later. It's pointless to read mainstream commentary as well, we've got thousands of bloggers, some of whom can do it better. A media organization has one edge; they can put someone on a story full time and they can spend resources necessary to add the depth and context to the stories we already know about. Admittedly this a sophisticated play, and a dangerous one if the institution is wedded to ideology (I'm thinking of the travesties of Time and Newsweek), but if they don't appeal to us info-junkies, who will they appeal to?
The number of people who are into current events but don't use the internet must be miniscule now and rapidly shrinking.