The Call for iNews

Last week, the New York Times' David Carr asked in a column whether the faltering newspaper business could take a page from Apple and invent an iTunes for news that would bolster companies' bottom lines. As Carr asks:

"Is there a way to reverse the broad expectation that information, including
content assembled and produced by professionals, should be free?"

The line of thinking is easy to follow: Readers, like listeners who were used to downloading music for free, can be retrained to pay for content. It doesn't sound absurd on its face. Newsgathering is often expensive if done right, and the cost of reporting just isn't being paid for by things like display ads.

But let's not forget the basic economic principle that says people typically won't pay for something once they've gotten it for free. Let's also remember that many music listeners were downloading with fear. They were concerned about legal ramifications of their actions and could be persuaded to pay for piece of mind. There's no such concern with reading news for free.

The answer to Carr's question is that, yes, some loyal readers would pay for the content. He points out that he subscribes to the Wall Street Journal online, even though he could get much of the same news by going behind firewalls. Problem is, Carr isn't your typical news consumer.

Then there's the issue of pricing. Apple is being lauded for changing the one-price-fits-all model of iTunes. But how would one set a pay scale for articles -- by author, publication prestige, article length?

And don't forget about the technology angle. In a response column to Carr's piece, Slate's Jack Shafer notes that "a flawed iTunes for news already exists." That is, Amazon's Kindle, which allows users to download paid subscriptions to the Times and other publications for a fee. Shafer rightly notes that the market for a reader isn't where it needs to be.

It's also worth mentioning that a sizeable number of newsies (whose careers may depend on a new business model for journalism) would likely be against the idea of charging for news online. There's a strong argument to be made for democratizing information -- and the iNews model would certainly be a step back.

So where does that leave us?

Likely with a compromise. Charging everyone probably won't work. But keeping the status quo won't either. What about the idea of creating extra features -- videos, podcasts, behind-the-looks at how a story was reported -- offered to readers who are willing to pay? Sure, you run the risk of creating a tiered system of delivering news. But it might be worth a try.