With Time magazine’s story on the future of newspapers, much has been said about this industry.

I want to add a few things to the discussion:

 When many journalists from big cities think “newspapers,” they think about metro newspapers. Star Tribune. Pioneer Press. Chicago Tribune. Des Moines Register. It’s simply the mind set. So when they write “newspapers,” they fail to point out a notable difference between metro newspapers and community newspapers.

However, community newspapers — Albert Lea Tribune, Austin Daily Herald, Sentinel of Fairmont, Owatonna People’s Press — have fared much better than the metro newspapers. I’ve always argued the reason is that community newspapers still have a strong connection to their communities. Albert Lea is a community. Minneapolis is not. Suburbs and mid-size cities fall somewhere in between.

How do you know the difference? A community is more closely knit. If your son catches his first fish, what is the likelihood of getting his photo printed in the paper? In Albert Lea, it’s pretty easy compared to the Twin Cities. In a community, even people without kids in high school like to read about college scholarships. Well, generally anyway.

Don’t take it from me. A report from National Newspaper Association told of an in-depth collection of nationwide data coordinated by Suburban Newspapers of American and the accounting firm of Dennis, Gartland & Niergarth.

“Community newspapers are not in a crisis”, said Nancy Lane, president of SNA, “Certainly, they are affected by the economic downturn just like every other industry, but they have a bright and profitable future. No other medium is able to offer hyper-local news and information, down to neighborhood levels. Local news is extremely valued and as a result, advertisers are able to reach an engaged consumer.”

 Newspapers cover the fiscal health of many fields, but they cover their own more than any other. When radio began suffering from fragmentation during the 1990s, you didn’t hear much on the radio about it. The three networks had 90 percent of the TV viewing market at the end of the 1970s. Now they only have 30 percent of it because of cable, satellite, videos, Internet and such. The networks haven’t blabbed. But now that mid-size and metro papers are suffering, it’s all over the news.

Why? Well, many reasons, such as self-accountability, but the primary reason is that newspapers produce the most necessary, most in-depth and most thorough journalism. It’s one thing to lose a company, but the loss of reporters is another. That’s the real story here. Journalists are the watchdogs, the first draft of history, the Fourth Estate. And that matters a heck of a lot to the health of this democratic country of liberated people.

 The most astounding part is that newspaper content is being read and shared more than ever. The Internet has doubled and tripled the number of readers many papers had in the olden days of only dead-tree editions — which are not cheap to make anymore. The question of how to rebuild jobs for journalists is also how to monetize the World Wide Web.

 Many reporters, at the same time, understand the fiscal decisions that have to be made. That’s the way industry works. But I have faith in the future.

I look forward to the age of screens being the width of a piece of paper. Imagine the mediums of newspapers, television, radio, Internet, combining into an all-encompassing platform that is widely mobile. You can take it with you on the bus, to the woods, to the easy chair, to the breakfast table.

That future might be 15, 20, 30 years away, but it will happen. The competition for the market will prompt a need for reporters. And papers won’t have to pay for paper either.

Now imagine a more distant future. When the digital natives — being born never knowing a world without the Internet — are senior citizens, watch out. I think online connections will be as public and vital to the economy as the streets.

An education trait

Last week, an Albert Lea school board member took me to task for printing what was said in a public meeting of the school board.

I have thick skin and don’t mind facing scrutiny. Walking into a room with people wishing I weren’t there is no problem. I’m bolstered by the support of the people who aren’t in the room — the readers. But one thing puzzles me after all these years in journalism and covering education in many towns.

Why is it that so often people in the field of education want journalists to not do what was taught to them by educators? I wasn’t being hurtful by printing comments said at a board meeting. By printing the truth of the board debate, I was only doing what journalism professors taught me to do in college. If I do otherwise, what’s the point of education?

Tribune Managing Editor Tim Engstrom’s column appears every Tuesday.