News lives, newspapers die.

The Chandler family's recent tussle with the owners of the Los Angeles Times Points up a widespread trend: the amazing sinking fortunes of metro daily newspapers.

The Chandlers of Southern California are agitating the Tribune Co.. the owner of the Times, to break itself up or sell itself instead of buying back stock. Trouble is, no amount of corporate shuffling will do much to change the underlying fundamentals of daily newspapers, which aren't good.

The Times' readership has sunk 5.4 percent over the last year. But it is hardly alone. The Boston Globe s circulation is down 8.5 percent, Atlanta is down 6.7 percent, the Philadelphia Inquirer is down 5.1 percent.

Prospects for daily newspapers, are so bad that the nation s second-largest and once very good newspaper chain, Knight Ridder Inc., for which I once worked, is being chopped up and its newspapers parceled out.

Newspaper circulation declines are always alarming--especially steep ones--but they are particularly so now because the economy has done well. Circulations should be increasing.

Why are fewer people choosing to read metro daily newspapers?

The most widely cited reason is that people are busy today and don't have time. That is dead wrong, in my opinion. I mean, 35 million Americans--that's 20 percent of the adult population--had enough idle time last month to watch "American Idol." People have time; they just don't want to spend it reading a newspaper.

Another oft-cited reason is that newspapers have gotten lethally boring. Many newspapers decided the remedy was to splash more colorful photos across the pages, particularly of puppies and bikinis, and jam in brief, bright stories and info-graphics. Those efforts were particularly dunderheaded; most people turn to newspapers to get analysis, perspective and insight. For evidence, look to the Wall Street Journal, which has squelched much of the urge to update, yet it's doing relatively well.

I do think newspapers have suffered some because of the onslaught of cable television news shows. I used to scan the newspaper in the morning for important stuff, and then return to the newspaper in the evening to linger over the features and editorial pages and the like. Now, I often skip the newspaper at night to watch the cable news channels.

I also think newspapers have suffered from biased reporting, or at least the perception of it. A recent Wall Street Journal online poll asked readers what they believed was the main reason for declines in newspaper circulation. The second-biggest answer--23 percent--said biased reporting. This is an issue that newspapers are in denial about.

Interestingly, in that same online poll, the No. 1 answer was "online alternatives." Indeed, that's likely the biggest culprit. Many ex-subscribers have stopped the daily newspaper habit and have picked up the computer habit.

The online trend, in an of itself, is not necessarily bad for the news-producing industry. After all, reporters and photographers still need to report and photograph. Whether their work appears on paper or on an LCD screen is of little consequence. The only real issue is when or whether advertisers, who pay the bills for newspapers, will switch over to advertising online.

The change, for the most part, is a technology-driven one. As a result, all the stock buybacks and newspaper-chain breakups may postpone or slow down the effect of the trends, but they won't change the trends.

Charles Crumpley is editor of the Business Journal. He can be reached at [e-mail].