Johnson clearly sees that the world is shifting to a more efficient way of spreading information. Now news can be transmitted in the blink of an eye for people to consume. The fall of print media is, in my opinion a good thing in terms of the amount of waste related to print media. The old practice is inefficient and kind of a waste. People are worried about all of the newspaper companies failing people losing their jobs and I do to, it will definitely hurt the economy. But I also think that media companies have seen this coming for a while. People are getting their news on their computers, their TVs, and especially on their mobile devices (tablets and smart phones). The problem with this is that there are many who cannot afford these expensive, high tech devices.
It could be said that there are many free resources available to them in order to get news such as libraries, but people who cannot afford high tech devices are not going will probably not want to have to go to a library for news. I think it can be said that most people have TVs and could get news from that, but TV news is not nearly as comprehensive as a newspaper. There is only a fraction of the important stories on TV news programs. So maybe there should be some kind of low cost device that can deliver news without the need for paper.
So with circulation down, newspaper companies cannot afford to spend the money needed on resources and reporters to fill a newspaper and still turn a profit. There must be some solution to the problem. I for one identify with Johnson's excitement over the accessibility of news for me, but I wonder what other what other consequences will come about if we continue to move away from print media.