One of the most challenging, among many challenging, frontiers in newspapering at the moment is the comics section.
In my experience it is remarkably well-read as a part of the paper (as are horoscopes, the crossword puzzles and other diversions), so any attempt to reform the package is met with an emotional uprising you wouldn't likely get in reshaping much else. Which is, as Martha would say, a good thing: People attach themselves to the paper for many reasons, but if their comic pick is one of them . . .well, fine.
More than a few editors have encountered a tripwire in assuming they can cancel one comic strip and introduce another. If there's a general rule of thumb for any editor, it should be: Just add, don't take away. If you have to take away, ask your readers to help, then find other ways to deliver the strip to those who really wanted it retained.
These days the other challenge is that many strips aren't making an easy transition to online. Their creators aren't animators terribly often, so the production online of a static strip isn't competitive in an environment of video. It's a bit like watching still photographs on TV.
The New York Times has a good look at the evolving economics of comics strips.
Syndicated services representing cartoons are finding they need to immerse themselves into social media functionality or risk never attracting a new audience, but the economics of this approach are risky. Putting portfolios and archives online free, with advertising underwriting, isn't necessarily going to yield the revenue necessary to move forward.
Some are moving into mobile applications, animation, sound or other online-friendly features.
It's certainly not a field standing still.