But repurposed newspaper content online is a tough sell. There's just not enough truly original, unique content in today's newspapers, thanks to decades of newsroom cutbacks and management fondness for inexperienced G.A. reporters over highly trained specialists. A few publications that have not skimped on the quality of their content have succeeded with paid content online (such as Consumer Reports and Cooks Illustrated.) But I think the newspaper industry (and I do not mean to single out the L.A. Times) has a wildly inflated view of the value of its editorial content to the public.
Back to the newspaper beat. As someone with little firsthand experience in publishing, I'm curious what the breakdown is per types of content-- original, follow-up, derivative, repetitive, fluff. I'd like to see some of the more well-read blogs break this down as well.
Also, with periodicals, there's a lot more original content, which is why they more often charge. I also find it interesting that most of popular focus on media coverage is on newspapers and television-- despite that most of the intellectual class probably absorbs much more via magazines, radio, and webzines.
I still feel that Yelvington's suggestion was highly qualified: the headline clearly says: "... or is it?"
Case in point: Cyberjournalist cites E&P's report today that the Christian Science Monitor might start charging for content.
I am mildly interested why free content is seen as a given. I do buy into Yelvington's suggestions, that more creative subscription methods will be devised.