Gizmodo has a great little piece on why newspapers are seen as "old media". There is a documentary I saw a while ago about The New York Times called Page One which is well worth checking out. It deals a lot with the issues of internet, new media, piracy, the importance to "traditional journalism". What they completely miss though is people aren't anti-traditional reporting. It's the way that it's presented. I visit The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times every morning but their sites suck. They are confusing, chaotic, and a mess. I rarely spend much time on them because they are not conducive to a good, browsing experience.
I would gladly pay if their sites were awesome, but since their content is presented elsewhere, much better, and free, why would I pay for their shit site? I absolutely want there to be big institutions that are trustworthy and that have the money and clout to do what only companies like these can do - but if they don't want me getting that news via blogs and aggregators, make a good fucking website. Even though I try and go to their sites and support them, I end up getting very little out of it because they are trying to cram an old design paradigm into a new medium and it just doesn't work. This little comic does a very good job of summing up many of the major reasons why.