Excellent comments.

Let's start with the idea that breaking news can't and shouldn't be hidden behind a pay wall. I'll bet the "hot news" doctrine of 1918 will get challenged in court shortly and will fail. http://bit.ly
/Juirj Some news organizations will stake their brands on being first, and spend their resources to defend that, and some won't. We'll see whether being first can be a business model. I wonder how it's going for @BreakingNews.

Then move on to civics: We're in a new era for civic and government online information, provided free, based on the concept of transparency and the idea that government information belongs to the taxpayers. News organizations have long been broadcasters and interpreters of that kind of information. If they hide that information behind a pay wall, they're abdicating a traditional social responsibility and giving up providing information that has been their bread and butter. Someone else will fill the void, for free, as a civic responsibility. See Sunlight Foundation.

But some things are worth the money. Some quality, niche, found-nowhere-else content produced by news organizations could be worth paying for online: Jason S. is absolutely right that the successful pay-for-media examples are generally very specific genres, locations, or experts. Traditional news organizations in the past have had those experts, in words and visuals, but much of their best work that provides context to breaking news has remained hidden, inaccessible in archives. Curating and presenting that context in a visually pleasing way could be worth money in niche markets.

In addition, Google's Marissa Mayer laid out some ideas to the Senate the other day on how to target and package articles for readers: Those idea could provide context-useful advertising that readers want, rather than hate. For example, I bought a $17.99 bottle of olive oil from Weaver Street Market in Chapel Hill recently, on sale for $7.99. It was opt-in advertising in Twitter, as I followed the co-op store's Twitter account. That's the future of advertising, useful. I'm guessing Google and others see that as well.
Mayer's testimony: http://bit.ly/jGp0V

Quoting Clay Shirky (as everyone is): Nothing will work, but everything might.

I check the Charlotte Observer on the Web at least several times a day in addition to sometimes picking up the subscription paper copy out of my driveway to smell the ever dwindling newsprint and hold on it as long as I can. Something is happening and I'm not sure how to pin it down. We are in the midst of a sea change that is happening whether we like it, love it or hate it.

What's the answer on how to pay for reporters/editors & producers/copy editors/photographers/graphic designers? I have a few ideas. And I know some others who have some ideas. (And no, it's not the nonprofit route.)

Those who want a new business model for the PRINT product focus on the real issue: the decrease in advertising and how to reinvigorate that revenue. Advertising is where the money is/was. Should broadsheet dailies change to tabs? Should papers start Sunday magazines?

Excellent comments.

Let's start with the idea that breaking news can't and shouldn't be hidden behind a pay wall. I'll bet the "hot news" doctrine of 1918 will get challenged in court shortly and will fail. http://bit.ly
/Juirj Some news organizations will stake their brands on being first, and spend their resources to defend that, and some won't. We'll see whether being first can be a business model. I wonder how it's going for @BreakingNews.

Then move on to civics: We're in a new era for civic and government online information, provided free, based on the concept of transparency and the idea that government information belongs to the taxpayers. News organizations have long been broadcasters and interpreters of that kind of information. If they hide that information behind a pay wall, they're abdicating a traditional social responsibility and giving up providing information that has been their bread and butter. Someone else will fill the void, for free, as a civic responsibility. See Sunlight Foundation.

But some things are worth the money. Some quality, niche, found-nowhere-else content produced by news organizations could be worth paying for online: Jason S. is absolutely right that the successful pay-for-media examples are generally very specific genres, locations, or experts. Traditional news organizations in the past have had those experts, in words and visuals, but much of their best work that provides context to breaking news has remained hidden, inaccessible in archives. Curating and presenting that context in a visually pleasing way could be worth money in niche markets.

In addition, Google's Marissa Mayer laid out some ideas to the Senate the other day on how to target and package articles for readers: Those idea could provide context-useful advertising that readers want, rather than hate. For example, I bought a $17.99 bottle of olive oil from Weaver Street Market in Chapel Hill recently, on sale for $7.99. It was opt-in advertising in Twitter, as I followed the co-op store's Twitter account. That's the future of advertising, useful. I'm guessing Google and others see that as well.
Mayer's testimony: http://bit.ly/jGp0V

Quoting Clay Shirky (as everyone is): Nothing will work, but everything might.

Have you seen the Visit My Baltimore site mentioned in the post? It is not a journalism effort necessarily, but I think it is a good example of the types of experimenting Newspapers need to look toward.