Two words my friend. Wireless internet.
One thing that keeps the local evening papers running in the UK is their sport coverage -- everything from the big local teams to the weekend results from the amateur and kids' leagues. The national tabloids may report the Premier League transfer rumours, but it's the local journos that have a foot in the door at the club, even if that means they're less likely to offer critical reporting. The demographics and dynamics are different in the US, and though the dispersal of alumni means that local papers aren't the ideal venue for college sports reporting, there are still high school rivalries and local minor league teams to follow. There's room, though, for the development of de facto online wire services for particular teams, whether in the big leagues or the college conferences, combining traditional reportage and blog-like coverage.
One development I expect to see in the US--and probably Canada, though I'm not familiar enough with European newspaper ownership to know about them--is the big national ownership groups, e.g., MediaNews, Gannett and Tribune, will consolidate writing duties. Between the falling revenues and increasing newsroom pink slips I think there's no other solution and I'm surprised not to have read this yet from any media pundits. What I mean is that instead of each paper having their own TV, book, music and sports writers each chain will pick the smallest number needed for a particular beat and use them across all papers. So probably one or two TV, book, music and media writers nationally plus perhaps one to cover explicitly local material. Just enough sportswriters to have one on hand at any given major event, rather than dedicated per team, plus a small number of columnists (though not necessarily local); something similar for business and tech, except in markets like Silicon Valley and New York that can justify local hiring. So each local market would have proprietary written stories on their own teams, albeit not necessarily by the same writer all season long. I think printed papers will be around for perhaps 10-15 more years, even if they make major changes such as what I've suggested, but (and to respond directly to mighty mike) the iPhone is a harbinger of what's to come tech-wise. For now the screen is too small and the devices are a tad too expensive to replace printed papers but virtual displays are almost at the mass market price point of under $200, perhaps 24-30 months away from it, and then the ocean wave will begin to swell.
Wasn't TV supposed to wipe out radio and plays 50 years ago? I'm just saying...
