The picture, Wilby states, is complicated.  But the underlying theme is this:  newspapers don't need many people to turn out a product.  

A journalist's main argument for keeping a staff is that a paper simply "won't come out" without its main resource.  During strikes, Wilby says, papers "are often published by a handful of senior executives," proof that you don't need a large staff.

The consequences of a small staff?  If subediting is reduced, "as it usually is," then the paper can suffer a decline in quality, with misprints or factual errors.  However there isn't sufficient proof that the "typo" consequence will cause readers to cancel subscriptions.

In journalism, the loss of journalists can't be proven to show the damage in quality or circulation, whereas a rise in the cover price or a cut in the marketing budget will "always have an immediate and tangible effect."

In fact, small staff could be "the consequence, not the cause," of small circulation, Wilby says.  

With fewer people producing news stories, there will be an increased proportion of space filled by the PR industry--news with more "spin," Wilby says, citing Nick Davies' analysis in the book Flat Earth News.  

In the short term, readers probably won't notice the decrease in quality as a result of staff cutbacks, according to Wilby.  

Change is an intrinsic part of the industry.  Newspapers must adapt to be "highly differentiated, high-quality products" both online and in print if they are to survive, Wilby says, and a dedicated, if not plentiful staff, is key.

Source: Guardian.co.uk