In this week’s Time, Walter Isaacson argues that newspapers won’t survive unless people start paying something for the online versions. (He suggests a micro-payment system a la E-ZPass).
I agree with Isaacson that the newspaper (and magazine) industry must think in radical terms. Thomas Jefferson said, “were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” Yet major American cities may soon lack newspapers (of either a paper or digital form).
Isaacson argues that if people are willing to pay 99 cents for a song, they surely would be willing to pay pennies for useful information. But does the analogy hold up? Listeners perceive that song as being valuable AND unique. There’s only one Springsteen. However, many media consumers have come to believe (often erroneously) that news or information is a widely available commodity.
They point to hundreds of information sources — blogs and websites — without realizing how many of those exciting new venues rely on the dinosaurs. Michael Wolff recently wrote it was no big deal if the New York Times went out of business because we have Huffington Post. That prompted me to go through the Huffington Post home page at that moment. I like Huffington Post but of the 29 stories, 23 were links to or based entirely on journalism by mainstream media outlets. The others were based on public domain (watching public press conferences or TV shows). None were based on original, gum-shoe reporting.
Activists on both left and right have convinced themselves that mainstream media is so corrupt and biased that places like Drudge and Huffington are more likely to give the truth. Typical of the liberal version of this anti-media sentiment can be seen in the comment thread on my HuffPo post:

“There is a general consensus that the main media has a vested interest in telling the good side of a corporate story, instead of the side that benefits the people”
“People don”t appear to trust in the Journalistic Institutions to which you refer. It is one common ground that even the most fanatical Left or Right thinkers can agree on.”
“The internet does a better job of covering international news than the New York Times.”
“Yes, we need more articles that are in the same caliber of those glorious reporters Jayson and Judy!Therefore we need the NY times.”
“These much vaunted “journalists” you praise led us into the murder and maiming of thousands of children in Iraq with their brilliant reporting on “weapons of mass destruction”. …. I want less from these prima donnas rather than more.”
“I agree most bloggers on Huffpo are smarter and more honest than anybody at the Times.”

The same basic sentiment can be found on most conservative websites (with a different bill of particulars).
If the New York Times starts charging, will people pay or just seek out a free information (or commentary) somewhere else? My fear is that public trust in the value of journalism has deteriorated so much it will hinder efforts to create viable new business model.