The simple answer to this is no. Whilst it is true that reading age is declining all of the time, dumbing down a paper will not in itself attract new readers and may well alientate existing readers. TV will always do a better job at presenting the news in pictures, that is the only mdium it is capable of working in. The newspaper is only attractive to people who need a more in depth and considered view of the news.
Unfortunately, led ny advertising departments who promised mkore than they could deliver in terms of ad revenue, newspapers chose the wrong model to follow in terms of internet presence. Newspapers should neever have been made free on the internet. People will pay for quality. Giving stuff away for free diminishes its value and ultimately its usefulness to the end user.
In fact the only way forwards now IMHO is for newpapers to get on the Kindle bandwagon. Delivering news electronically to people when they need it most.

Are the duties of newspapers still relevant? Indeed they are, esp. at the local and investigative levels, but their articles will be delivered electronically instead of being printed for most people (assuming society stays aiming in its current directions). This gets rid of the costs of printing, design, and physical delivery (face it-once a template is made for a page, there is little use for a graphic designer to be on staff afterwards-"content is king").

What most newspapers are doing wrong today is shrinking their news-gathering staff and printing more "low-depth" material (much of which is simply cut & pasted from a wire service) instead of increasing their coverage, depth, and corresponding value to readers; the reporting of material is the key to their survival (and readership/"eyeballs"), and they will need to do so at a lower cost structure for advertisers (I do not know how YOU feel, but I resent paying for a newspaper when _I_ am the product being sold to advertisers, not the news being sold to me. I also know internet advertising is a LOT cheaper than print advertising cost-wise-in-general, esp. classified advertising, which was a big newspaper moneymaker "back in the day").

Energy to make paper, energy to get the paper thrown at the house, energy to dispose, the newspaper is old, inefficient technology.
Local cities have their own informative web sites.

As all my working life was involved in newspaper production I still feel there is a real need for quality investigative and general journalism. I can accept that TV has had a major impact on advertising and news coverage but to me only newspapers can provide the in-depth analyse of events throughout the world.
Often TV gets bogged down with mindless trivia but there should always be the need for sound print news. It seems that profit at all costs is the by-word of commerce and the need to be seen to be successful is the essential ingredient.

I was a staff photographer on the Chronicle back in the 60's.
In an attempt to become the New York Times of the West, the paper adopted a very conservitive photo policy. One column mug shots accompinied most stories, and there was never any time to do a photo essay. And, of course, there was no color at all.

I quit in 1972 because of my frustration with all of this.

But their stupid photo policy may have saved the life of one of their photographers. They were too cheap to pay the airfare for a photographer to accompany Congressman Ryan to Jonestown, so Greg Robinson of the Examiner was the only newspaper photographer killed in that awful event.

But I concur with many of the others who have commented here; Too little too late.

It may well be that sites like

The Huffington Post

are the future of journalisim.

Sadly - Greg Peterson

I think really strong photos, large, is a great idea. I do most of my news reading online now, and I worry that as electronic delivery takes over, the level of reporting will slip, causing a greater knowledge gap in the electorate. I read on my laptop because it is convenient and quickly updated, but I love magazine reading on paper. I keep the Sunday NY Times magazine and book review and throw out most of the rest. Immediately. I think one way to make newspapers work in print is to make them easier to pick up, take with you and read. There's nothing wrong with the tabloid format except how associated it is with sensationalism vs. thoughtful, in-depth reporting.

The big issue, though, is how to make enough money on electronic delivery to keep those reporters, from international to local, on the job. Without them, where will we get the truth?