Rieder: Newspaper future is one (or $1) vexing question

"One is the loneliest number that you'll ever do," Three Dog Night taught us so many years ago.

But lonely or not, good old "one" has certainly been in the news a lot lately.

This week came word that Cablevision had offered one dollar — yep, just one — to buy the Daily News.

No, not a single copy of the New York tabloid, but the whole business, with presses and all.

We also learned this week that The New York Times, known for many things but hardly its brevity, is going to be producing one-sentence stories, "specially crafted for small screens," for Apple Watch users.

This at a time when much of the free world is still reeling from the news that Zayn Malik was leaving beloved British boy band One Direction.

It's enough to make one's head spin.

At first I thought maybe these unlikely stories were early April Fools' hoaxes, but apparently that's not the case.

At first blush, the offer of a single dollar to acquire a newspaper that once sold nearly 5 million copies each Sunday seemed like the ultimate insult to the struggling newspaper business. Really? Has it come to this?

But there is the fact that the paper is reported to lose as much as $30 million a year. That's real money, and no doubt why the owner, wealthy developer Mort Zuckerman, is at last unloading it. You can't blame someone for not wanting to pay too heavily for the privilege of swallowing all that red ink.

And there is a precedent when it comes to buying a venerable but money-hemorrhaging print publication for a buck. The Washington Post Co. soldNewsweek for $1 to audio mogul Sidney Harman back in 2010.

Also, it turns out Cablevision, run by James Dolan, whose other holdings include Newsday and Madison Square Garden, isn't the only bidder for the News. There are reports that John A. Catsimatidis, owner of Gristedes grocery chain, is also in the hunt. We're hoping his offer is a little more generous.

As for the Apple Watch development, it's true that in an era of tweets, blurbs and short attention spans, The New York Times has stood out for its continuing commitment to serious (and often quite long) journalism. Single-sentence stories, which, as many have noted, were once known as "headlines," don't really seem like they hang out in the Times' wheelhouse.

But you can't blame the Times for, as Echosmith might say, wanting to be like the cool kids. Actually, the company is putting a great deal of effort into plotting its digital reinvention. That's not only commendable, it's essential.

So given all the highly publicized travails of the newspaper industry, which has been thoroughly disrupted by the digital maelstrom, where are we now? Are there reasons for hope? Or is it time for One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Beer?

I posed that question to Caroline Little, who announced last week that she's stepping down Aug. 31 after four years as president and CEO of the Newspaper Association of America. Little actually will be spending more time with her family as she joins her husband in Santa Fe.

Little doesn't sugarcoat the problems the industry faces, as advertising has declined sharply along with print circulation. It definitely remains a business in transition toward a digital future. "We're still working toward a business model that will work," she says.

But Little is encouraged by the advent of new revenue streams: paid digital circulation; newspapers setting themselves up as marketing consultants; events; and native advertising. And she is heartened by the overall size of the audience, which includes substantial numbers of digital readers on top of what remains of print circulation.

"Is it hard? Yes," she says. "It's hard on people who lose their jobs, people who are undergoing wrenching change. But I don't see the products that newsrooms create going away. Yes, I'm still optimistic."

Let's hope she's right about that one.