Not my words but the words of Ian Dunt for politics.co.uk.

He talks about the Times Online's decision to implement a pay wall in June by charging £1 per day or £2 a week for their content. He also discusses the possibility of the Indie becoming free by the end of the year.

I like his view that journalism shouldn't go down the road of being fully funded by advertising and become free to consumers:

"This process also contributes to the impression that journalism is somehow worthless, that it is without value. It is not. Socks fulfil a function. They cost money. Journalism fulfils a function, and it should therefore cost money too. Simple stuff really."

Comments

 Well spotted, Rob. If public service journalism is not worth paying for then representative democracy is doomed. I have made some related arguments in a piece for tomorrow's Independent.  I did not write it free of charge.   

This may be an embarrassingly stupid question, but nevermind...

Let's say I decide to buy a paper copy of The Times, but I've not subscribed to the printed version. I pay my £1 for it in the morning and then the news develops and I want to look at something online, except I can't unless I spend another £1. What's the point of ever buying the paper?

That'll probably be where the £2 per week subscription would be useful. Under 30p per day for the updates. Sounds like a fair deal. Although it does banish 'the Rob Hayes blog - brought to you by the Times Online' to the wilderness forever.

D-day for Journalism