The reason that he hasn’t ‘just done it’ is because he has no better idea than you or I how to actually make it work. A while back the SMH introduced registration for more than an article or two. It didn’t last twelve months, and that was “free” (if you don’t count the loss of reader privacy and potential for spam). This is the ‘first view free’ model and they couldn’t even get readers to register, much less pay.

And it’s a fair question what value-added we (or their advertisers) are paying for. News headlines come up in my mailer screen, but they, and even Google News, are mostly ambulance-chasing trivia. When I want credibility and in-depth I go to the ABC (and a big hat tip to Liz Jackson on her richly-deserved award).

Quite a while back Robinson interviewed Packer, Murdoch, and his boss Stokes (who he didn’t spare). This series of interviews left me with the impression Packer(snr) had heard of the internet (like he had heard of Yo-Yo’s), Murdoch had people working on it, while Stokes had Google on his desktop.

Two out of three were internet-deniers, and Murdoch like the RIAA thinks he can stuff the genie back in the bottle. If Gates can’t dominate the net then Murdoch is dreamin’.

The fact is, most of the ambulance-chasing could be replaced by citizen-journalists with a cellphone (with about the same accuracy), a good swadge is rehashed PR releases (effectively spam), and there is some in-depth commentary and investigative reports that is experienced and connected (e.g. Michelle Grattan this week) which IS worth paying for and supporting, but it’s only a tiny proportion of the whole. So-called “sausage journalists”, people who wrote without byline and were used literally by the column inch, have already been blogging for some time.

As with the music publishing industry, the only thing we can be really sure of is that the old business model isn’t working any more, and nobody has any real idea of what, if anything, will replace it. Apart from Sony virusing a bunch of their CD’s, and that with *pirated* code, the stance seems to be head in sand until the internet/digital revolution goes away.

Both music and news have a valid point about needing income from their products, but to claim that every download is a full lost sale is disingenuous because people download tracks available for free that they would never actually buy. For many their downloading vastly exceeds their total buying capacity and if these downloads were prevented it couldn’t possibly translate into anything like an equal number of full price sales.

The problem with free access being “theft” in cyberspace is the unique Magic Pudding effect where the item is *replicated* rather than *transferred*. Is it still “theft” if you can replicate my car without disadvantage to me? It may be some sort of moral wrong, but it sure as hell isn’t “theft” in the normal sense of the word.

When the world switched from horses to engines the buggy whip manufacturers were in deep trouble. Now the music and news industries have to deal with their own Future Shock, or simply evaporate.

@Daniel
I remember The Herald having to claw back early editions annoucing the Coalition had won a Federal election when it hadn’t. Collectors items.

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/nvc-article/tell-us-it-aint-true-mercury/

One of the articles I referenced had a pretty blatant grammatical error (a crucial word was missing from a sentence) which I resisted using to take a pot shot at them.

Not to mention the current top story is about $12 trendy coffees…