Mutter makes it clear that he has made this supposition with as little variance as possible, and as close to current revenue strategies as possible.

He ends his piece by typing, "Apart from the few newspaper executives stubborn enough to hew to the industry's traditional course in hopes of being rescued by a rapid and robust economic turnaround, it is reasonable to assume that most publishers are going to start doing something different in an attempt alter the deteriorating economics that are threatening their core business.

"I don't know what the new innovations might be," he continues. "The scary part is that I am afraid the publishers don't, either."

It has been my long-held opinion that newspapers devalued themselves long ago, by charging bargain-basement prices for single-copy sales and home delivery of their products. Many of the comments following Part II of Mutter's provocative offering also get at why newspapers have been so slow to increase their fees.

In the past couple of decades, many newspaper publishers began virtually giving away their product. This was done so that advertising executives could lure possible advertisers by pitching the sheer number of eyes that would allegedly be on their ads thanks to the wide distribution of the papers.

This was probably a sound strategy when the economy was on more solid footing, and when there wasn't as much competition for advertising dollars as there is today.

Because publishers may have boxed themselves in with their dirt-cheap rates for home-delivery of their newspapers, it might now be too late to charge more for this service. Whether or not this trend is indeed reversible, could go a long way in determining whether newspapers will survive.