Trying to preserve what you are currently doing is going to be as effective as people who walked around London with clocks telling the time once pocket watches became reasonably cheap. You no longer have the restriction of massive costs of printing presses or the limited range that distributors can provide keeping the competition away. I can set up a rival news outlet in minutes, for free. I can have advertising running on the same day. If I grab a scoop and it gets linked around the net, I'll make some reasonable money.

The only thing that makes any money is good, unique content now.

Which is why I think that it's actually possible for "content" to make money, but it has to be fragmented. If you told me I had to pay $5-10 a year to read Roger Ebert's reviews, I'd pay it. If you told me I had to pay $5/week to read the Chicago Sun-Times, of which I pretty much only care about Roger Ebert, I wouldn't. The whole concept of a daily newspaper done digitally is just dumb as a pile of rocks. That was created because of the limitations of the technology, not because it was the best form. The best form is article or section based, which is why most of the "new media" is actually based around a particular subject, like Gizmodo or Pocket-Lint.