Free or With a Fee, That is the Media Question

How to explain this contradiction:

I, like others, see the writing on the wall for newspapers and other media companies that once gladly put their content online for free with the thinking that online ad revenue would largely pay the bills.

I see the stories about Rupe Murdoch promising to charge for this online content and seeking to create an online news consortium. I see the headlines about the growth of Journalism Online, which aims to smooth the transition to a paid online model for publishers and readers. And I can't help but see what likely will be the future of online news -- micropayments and such.

In conversations about paying for content, I strongly argue that people should be willing to underwrite the work of reporters and editors.

But then I click on a story from the Washington Post. It asks me for my name and e-mail address, information that takes about 10 seconds to provide. It's not asking for money. Yet I turn away, look for another free article or route to the same information. Not because of a philosophical objection but typically because I'm in a hurry to acquire information. The same thing happens when I see one of those ads that covers and text and prevents you from quickly scanning the info. Run the other way.

And that's just what happens when I encounter any non-monetary barrier to the content. I haven't even tested myself on how I'd react to a pay wall.

And so, on a personal level, I understand what's at play here: A battle between the business needs of media companies and the basic instincts of online grazers who are used to free.

It doesn't mean that I won't continue to support whatever moves are necessary to keep the news business in business, but it does mean that I will continue to recognize how hard it is to change reader behavior.