Unless you've been stuck on a mountain in Maine the last few days, you've probably picked up on the latest meme of the moment: "The Press Herald is Shutting Its Doors."

While that's not the case (for today at least - hey, we live in tricky times here) it does provide us with another look at the sticky intersection of the news business, technology and where (if anywhere) it's all going.

We can thank WGME for kicking things off the other day with a story that indicated money troubles could mean your daily newspaper could be closing in the near future.

By this morning the ball had been picked up and the story (thanks to the AP) was making the rounds at the Bangor Daily News, The Lewiston Sun Journal and on the other coast at our parent company - The Seattle Times. Along the way blogs, forums and other observers on the journalism deadpool watch picked up on the story, including Editor & Publisher and Poynter's Romenesko.

Now, it's fair game to point out that our own publisher stated the possibility of a shutdown in court documents - this is a fact.

Most folks also know that we've had our share of painful cutbacks and bloodletting here in the last year - this is also a fact.

It's no secret that these are bad times for newspapers - According to Papercuts we're down more than 7,000 jobs industry wide just this year.

(Bonus: Pop quiz on newspaper economics!)

So is it any surprise that people would jump on the idea that their local (or, "yet another") newspaper was on life-support and about to have the plug pulled?

An observation I've had in recent weeks when people talk to me about the fate of the Press Herald, is the idea that people can't imagine what it would be like to not have a newspaper. Folks can't seem to picture a Portland without some sort of newspaper. (The AP and other local news sources should consider that too - it could mean less content for them)

While that's a nice sentiment, I thought it was odd considering how much circulation has changed and how many people don't read the physical paper on a daily basis.

It'd be nice and heartwarming in a "clap-your-hands-if-you-believe-in-journalism" sort of way to think "they don't read us, but they know they need us."

But why do they need us? Slate's Press Box says newspapers used to provide the "cultural currency" that people needed in their daily lives:"

Those days are dying at an increased rate because so many other avenues online can provide that service. People share news on Facebook, they talk headlines over Twitter, they keep up with sports on their favorite blogs. (Also, maybe because the shoe-shine man hasn't gotten steady work since the Carter administration.)

And this brings me back to my question before - if people don't read us, why do they need us? Is it sentimentality? Nostalgia? A glimmer of hope?

Now that I think about it, maybe all those people were just humoring me...

SOUND OFF! (I've been told the comments work again, so have at it!)

E-mail this entry to a friend