That is some news for the newspapers. How bad, do you ask? In one year The Baltimore Sun lost 10 percent of its readers. The daily circulation of the Chicago Tribune went down by 6.6 percent, the Denver Post 6.3 percent, the Los Angeles Times 6.4 percent, the Cleveland Plain Dealer 5.2 percent, and the San Francisco Chronicle 6.0 percent. The Miami Herald was down 3.7 percent, the Houston Chronicle slipped by 3.9 percent, and the Washington Post lost 2.6 percent. The Wall Street Journal reported decline of 0.8 percent in six months. Every paper lost more or less higher percentage of readers for their Sunday editions.

The news isn't any better in other parts of the world. In Singapore, 159-year old the Straight Times experienced gradual decline over the years. During the past decade the population of Singapore rose by 30% but the newspaper's circulation grew only by 6.5 per cent. Its sister paper Business Times lost a whopping 12% between March 2003 and September 2004. Similar trends are also being noted in Europe. UNESCO suggests that all post-industrial countries have seen declining newspaper sales.

Something to worry, eh! The bad news comes from many corners, but primarily from Project for Excellence in Journalism, which has recently produced a 500-page report, "The State of the News Media 2004", painting a dismal picture of the future of newspapers. For example, circulation of English-language newspapers in the United States has declined by 11 per cent since 1990. The share of the U.S. population that reads newspapers has been shrinking for more than two generations.

One of the many conclusions of the report is that the young generation was clearly failing to develop reading habit. Even worse, some data suggest that people who began reading newspapers in recent times have stopped, except those over 65. Newspapers are losing readers across age and demographic groups. They are losing among people at all educational levels. A columnist of The Washington Post has raised concern that if the circulation of newspapers kept dipping at the current rate, then the last newspaper subscriber would give up his subscription by 17 October 2016.

The conventional explanation is that the advent of radio in the 1920s, television in the 1950s and the Internet in the 1990s have gradually undercut the popularity of newspapers. But despite the growing use of radio and television, daily circulation of newspapers peaked in the United States in 1984, but then slipped by 13 percent in 2003. Between 1985 and 2003, advertising revenue grew by only 4.4 percent, while the GDP, measured in current dollars, grew by 161 percent.

Of course, a problem may not be solved, but it can be explained. The young people are not developing reading habit. The Do-Not-Call Federal law restricts telemarketing of new subscriptions in the United States. And, of course, the Internet is there to take its share of blame.

But is that all? Newspapers started as a medium of information, and then that medium turned to entertainment until it competed with other media of infotainment. Television came first, then Internet where news and entertainment are updated by the hour- news, music, quiz shows, and pornographic materials catering to the taste buds of inquiring minds.

Truth is that the world has changed and the newspapers have also changed within it. Once newspapers were mouthpiece of the profound and the pure, which filtered truth and honesty to reveal facts cluttered by scurrilous men. News was meant to be unbiased account of what actually happened. People yearned for facts like they yearned for the kernel of fruits.

Perhaps one of the reasons why newspapers are losing appeal is because they are losing relevance. Once it used to take conscience to bring out a newspaper. Now it takes cash. Newspapers are now partisan, parochial and prejudiced, treated like courtesans of those who bankroll, those who pay for the press, premises and newsprints. The State of the News Media 2004 report says it best: "Newspapers are now run by corporations rather than entrepreneurs". What is the difference? One is the harbor of status quo, and another is the harbinger of change.

Although the older generations are still clinging to their old habit, the younger ones are not interested. And they have their reasons. If information is divorced from truth, what remains is entertainment only. Now why should anybody look for entertainment in the newspapers, while more attractive options are available, which do not clutter the house? One of the reasons why newspapers are losing penetration amongst the youth is that the press laws are often restrictive and the editors excessively comply with them. Many of the young people are cynical, demanding more serious choices while others want credible voice to air opposing views.

In Singapore, the main reason why newspapers have slipping readership is that while many aspects of life have transformed, newspapers have hardly altered beyond improvement of journalistic styles. One frequent complaint is that newspapers play up the good news and downplays the bad to please the government. Another complaint is that newspapers become outspoken and hard-hitting only when covering foreign news, shrinking back when it comes to similar domestic issues.

In all fairness, the newspapers are not to blame for it alone. In a fast changing world, the younger generations are growing up to cope with change without aspiring to change anything. No ideology, no revolution, they are ready to work hard for a good life, and that good life means they must enjoy the earning, not the learning. Newspapers are not simply fitting into their lifestyle.

So what has to happen has happened. If growing number of people are turning away from the newspapers, it is not because newspapers are not colorful and attractive, more so if you think of the tabloids. Somewhere in the contents and treatment of news, newspapers are giving it away. Perhaps newspapers have outlived their relevance in a time of metaphysical reconciliation when how people live justifies why they live at all. Daily headlines of death and devastations, highlights of human follies, tragedies, trials and tribulations do not appeal to the minds marinated in the heady juice of material mirth.

May be, newspapers are also going the way of vanishing arts-the rural bards, the village theaters, pottery, muslin-weaving, archery, swordsmanship and more. Life evolves from livelihood and livelihood devolves on profession, whereas everything revolves around time. Old saying in a new voice: Only thing constant in life is change. Time changes, life changes, which changes everything else.

Last call for those, who don't read my column! Read it while it comes to your doors, before you have to struggle in an archive or a museum to find what you missed. Come on readers, given the dwindling fate of newspapers treat it as a limited offer. If I had my druthers, I would have come to your house to read it for you.

Mohammad Badrul Ahsan is a banker.