"foreign correspondents for American newspapers have become a dying breed,"

This is true, but it's also the wrong measure to use. American newspapers are a dying breed. The once-mightly LA Times is in extremely parlous state due to dropping circulation, and even the Old Gray Lady (the NY Times) is feeling the pressure. Smaller and more regional newspapers are in tough shape also.

But.... this is a little like measuring UPI (the now defunct press agency) and using it as a measurement. UPI probably had more than 1000 reporters in 1950 but none today (because it went out of business). What you really need to ask is what replaced UPI. Or in this case what is replacing the LA Times. Ie 'new' media. CNN, Fox, ITV, and their counterparts globally. More or fewer correspondnets? I suspect fewer - but with far more reach per correspondent.

The very name news carries significance in this context. 'Dead tree' publications too married to their newsprint are dying. Other publications are going online with some enthusiam. I believe the Washington Post is doing comparatively well, for example.

This involves a different business model, and provides opportunities for new organisations. Only a few years ago I bought both the Times and the Daily Telegraph daily - now I probably buy them twice a month (if that). Usually on the weekends because I love the travel sections and some of the special magazines included then. Almost never on a weekday unless I'm far from a PC.

Wehre do I get my news? The same sources as before. The websites of major newspapers, cnn.com, the beeb. They are far more timely but it's the same content - plus it's gratis. The single exception is the NY Times, which has placed it's contents behind a 'Berlin Wall'. You must pay to get most NY Times and I can't be bothered. Everyone else is using advertising to finance operations.

This has two major advantages. I kill fewer trees and use many fewer resources (petrol, chemicals, wood, etc) to get my news. And I don't have to dispose of a couple heavy bags of newspaper waste to go to the landfill every week (which is a pain anyway). Given my former habits I extimate that I have cut my waste by 25 or 33% since 2002.

You may call me a freeloader but I don't agree. I'm saving the planet (also don't own a car), and the cost of delivery to a consumer like me is hugely less to the news organisation. Why should I pay to subsidise dead-tree mastodons? The UK Times has more than doubled it's price in 6 years - but online readers should pay perhaps 10% of the paper price or less. Nothing when one considers ad revenues.

Ah, but the structure matters, Joerg. In 1980 I got my daily news from the Milwaukee Journal, so the number of foreign correspondents the Journal had might have mattered. Today I get my news (particularly my foreign news) from the Washington Post, the CNN website, and the NY Times to a degree. What we are seeing is a process of consolidation. I think it will go further; the NY Times will publish a national edition with local content in each of theor markets. Whether they call that product the NY Times or the Boston Globe matters little.

What this may mean is fewer foreign correspondents but a greter reach for each correspondent. Actually my concern is not so much about foreign coverage - larger news organisations will have the resources to maintain correspondents in ever more specialised places; not only Bonn or Berlin but also Stuttgart. No, what worries me is the depth of local coverage that a national newspaper will be able or willing to provide.