It's never a good idea to put two scales on one chart, and this is another example of what not to do:
The ugliest part of this chart are the duelling gridlines. Because neither axis starts at zero, it is difficult to access whether the number of newspapers was declining at a faster pace than the circulation was. Also, line charts would be better able to trace the evolution over time. The interspersed blue and red columns interfere with each other. Note that the designer lessened our pain by plotting every other year, thus halving the number of columns.
The junkart version also puts two data series on the same chart but on the same scale. Instead of plotting the raw data, we plot indices, with 2008 as 100. This reveals a pattern that was not apparent in the original chart. There appeared to have been four periods of evolution: up till 1980, both the number of newspapers and total circulation were at a plateau; from 1980 to 1990, the circulation stayed stable while the number of papers dropped drastically, indicating perhaps consolidation; then from 1990 to 2003, both series declined at roughly equal rates; and finally, the bottom dropped off the circulation from 2003.
Reference: "Channel Shift: Online Circulars: the first step by retailers toward web-to-store harmony? ", Internet Retailer (print), May 2009. Data from the Newspapers Association of America.
Bonus 1: Thinking about the column interspersing trick some more, I realize that it is, em, possible, em, that one series was plotted for odd years and the other series plotted for even years!
Bonus 2: Here is the requested scatter plot (still indiced):