That's an interesting question and thank you for asking. I am embarrassed to admit I had not even thought about the old school forms of Media ( Radio and Newspapers) but I think you are right, cord cutting can be a potential boon for this form of media.
I am not sure I personally would revert to buying a paper but I might go to their sites more often - which I do actually. Which brings up an interesting aspect to this - I live in Los Angeles, which is the chief reason I am so jaded with the local news which consists of nothing more than how many died today, the latest fire or heavy rain not to mention the car chase which can last for hours. Nothing of substance comes from Los Angles based local news and it is a depressing waste of time.
I was an avid L.A. Times reader before the information age took over and even then I occasionally check out the Sports section online where I have been met with an articles limit unless I become a member. Well I don't want to be a member and with so many choices to get news freely available I finally have some choice about the matter. I like many paid for a paper nearly daily for countless years only to read a third of it back in the days of no choice so now I don't want the L.A.Times telling me anything. They are not the only game in town anymore.
I occasionally read the New York Times and don't recall this type of heavy handedness or the Washington Post for that matter. I understand traditional papers need to find revenue but there are other ways to do it - just ask Google.
Not sure how I got on this tangent, but it is something that has bothered me for quite some time. Not every paper functions as dysfunctionally as the L.A. Times so cord cutting has great potential to bring eye-balls back to old-school forms of media. And I really hope it does, because as I mentioned the local news affiliates have no intention of ever conveying anything useful much less meaningful in L.A.
Even the L.A. Times might benefit.