February 16, 2009 issue of Time magazine, editorial page (To Our Readers) says "Why we should pay for news..." and they convincingly assert that news coverage costs money and that perhaps the on-line model from the start providing free content has been at fault. Wait, there are new e-readers and micropayments on the horizon. Hoorah! there are saviors for the dying.
Well, maybe and maybe not. I think that micropayments, paying a small amount for a bit of content is one model that should have it's day and I suspect there will be some level of success. But with anything you can buy and pay for, can you get your money back if you don't like it? A question they will never ask.
Journalism is at stake they say, reporting without bias they say, this is what we are going to lose if we don't pay up. Well, the paper of record, the New York Times is arguably not the best case for journalism (my opinion) and yet it's held out as the poster boy for calls to save it. I would be calling for it too if I thought it were fair and balanced. I present no evidence here just like Time presents no evidence that freedom isn't free. Maybe later, once I've been paid I will provide evidence.
Lastly, Time, newspapers, TV all have their own staff to collect and create the content and they have the vehicle to publish the content (print and cable/air as these cases are). Perhaps this is some of the problem, the content creators demand that they publish the content too, they get paid for the publication which includes the creation. From the begining of publishing it may have been necessary to have the two aspects of the work, creation and publication be inexorably linked. But now, in the age of 'e' everything this may be the devil in disguise and I don't see Time working this angle too much. Separating creation from publication is what www.globalpost.com is working to fill entrepreneurly. They collect and create new content and expect for others determined to publish it to pay for it, and thereby charge their customers. They have free content on their site and premium content for pay as well as offering the content for license to publishers. I don't expect Time to explore this angle either.
What do you think?