Well, print media is a shell of what it once was (perhaps a perfect storm of dishonest and biased reporting and the internet), and the music industry is still trying to figure out the best way to deal with reduced profits given the new distribution paradigm.
In both cases it has taken years to get to where we are today. I believe we really are seeing the beginning of the end of the cable/sat monopoly though.
Oh, and DVD replaced VHS. Blue-ray was supposed to replace DVD, but it hasn't happened. My bet is that both will die a slow death like the CD has as folks turn to streaming or downloading movies.
DVD replaced VHS with an essentially identical technology from a usage standpoint. The form factor was different, the quality was higher, but people still bought/rented things to insert in a player and watch on a TV. Claiming that's a change is like claiming that plastic grocery bags replaced paper bags...people still use them the same way.
The Internet succeeds where it can drop the price down to zero. That's what killed newspapers, not biased reporting (if you think newspapers are biased now, Google 'yellow journalism' and see what real bias is - by comparison the newspapers today are way way better) News, by definition, cannot be copyrighted, because you cannot copyright facts. Facts are free on the Internet, with a much bigger degree of slant in both directions than you can get from any newspaper thrown in as a bonus! That's why newspapers are in big trouble. Music was free for a while, thanks to Napster, even though it wasn't legal many didn't know/care at the time. The only reason the labels agreed to let Apple set such a low price and sell per song which later became a model for all music downloads is that they were competing with 'free' and knew they couldn't charge what they did for CDs and expect enough people to choose it over free but illegal.
Television is different, because even though it is legal to tell someone the score of a game or what happened in the latest Mad Men episode, people want to actually watch the program not just see reports of it. The internet can't drop its value to zero. Yes, there are illegal downloads, but it is much easier to police now than it was during the days of Napster. People might eventually switch from cable or satellite to a set top like Apple TV or Roku that lets them order seasons, assuming the sports leagues are willing to let them stream it and the Internet can handle the load of 100 million people streaming the Super Bowl at once. But we're not there yet, so the cord cutters are those who don't like TV too much and assign a low value to it. The people paying $150/month for TV aren't the ones cutting the cord, unless they lose their jobs and need to make serious cutbacks.
Whether cable/satellite go away as distribution models and are replaced by the Internet will depend on what the content owners want to do. They will sell their stuff in whatever way they think will make them the most money. At the moment, it is bundling a lot of stuff together and making people who don't care about sports pay for them anyway. In the past they keep increasing prices and people keep paying for it, so they will keep doing it until they ending up losing more in terms of lost subscribers than they gained in terms of more money per subscriber. The Internet is an alternative means of selling their content, that's all. It is not particularly efficient to send the same bitstream to millions of people individually instead of to thousands or millions of people at once, so ending up with the Internet as a distribution model will only happen if that inefficiency is overcome by being able make more money that way.