Futurism is ALWAYS a load of hooey. He's cherry-picking his data from the trough of the recession to make himself look smart. Newspapers are doing pretty well, actually, and are going to survive just fine.
Everything changes, including what's changing and how fast. The problem with futurism (and taking science fiction as a depiction of the future rather than an examination of the present) is that it necessarily extrapolates based upon current trends, which won't continue forever. So all of the futurism now is based upon extrapolating the internet and social media to an extreme, whereas prior to the explosion in personal computers it was all about extrapolating advances in aerospace (flying cars! jet packs! Space colonies!) A generation from now our current futurism will look as quaint as the Jetsons.
I remember seeing a chart on the current world record of that year for the 100 meter dash versus the year that extrapolated how long it would be until people could run it in 0 seconds. This reminds me of that.
Depressing? I see creative destruction, the good and great aspect of the free market, at work. I have never touched a paper copy of the Stranger, but I am steeped in its content and values nonetheless. The death of newspapers is not the end of journalism, and every end is a new beginning.
Where are his sources? His research? To simply say "FACTORS DRIVING THE PACE OF NEWSPAPER EXTINCTION" is nothing - where are the studies to back his numbers? I can make pretty charts that say nothing as easily as Dawson did.