I'd even go as far as arguing that informed citizens on public transportation are better than uninformed ones in cars.
This is besides the politics behind this particular decision.
Certainly, print+internet reaches more people than internet alone. However, I would suppose that print's exclusive reach is increasingly toward an audience that does not matter. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22not+on+the+internet+you+do...
informed citizens on public transportation
Increasingly, they (citizens on public transportation) use portable internet-enabled information devices. I would think that smartphones and Kindle readers would work well on a crowded subway. http://www.ilounge.com/gallery/iphone_asia/Tokyo-Subway-iPho...
http://www.iphonesavior.com/images/2007/08/07/ftrain1.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3202/2677315976_94a9b2122b.jp...
As to your second point, a rebuttal; the success of metro, among others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_International
Sakari Pitkänen, Global Editor-in-Chief of Metro International, has been appointed Vice President of Metro Interactive [...] "I believe a strong Internet presence is clearly important for the future of Metro."
That initiative appeared designed to assuage industry fears that young readers don't share the same appetite for print media that their parents and grandparents have, denting current and future revenues.
"The habit of reading the press is learned very young," Sarkozy said
I'd never suspected, but I actually like this Sarkozy idea. Money going to fighting illiteracy and improving education is always a good thing.