A few weeks ago Rupert Murdoch announced News Corp new sites would begin charging for content in the near future.

“Quality journalism is not cheap,” Mr Murdoch said. “An industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalising its ability to produce good reporting.”

The Punch (owned by News Corp) looked at the issue of paid content with a few pieces, one by Paul Colgan Psst, Twitter:  You might want to help save Big Media, another by Leslie Nassar (better known as fake Stephen Conroy) Not all media dinosaurs have small brains and  some comment from UTS journalism students about how they see the future of journalism.

David Penberthy also asked readers if they would pay for content.

Of the 177 comments (at the time I wrote this) on the Punch  thread, most people  say they would NOT pay for content, and Penberthy conceded that “we don’t have the answers,” which is probably why he asked the question in the first place. Still I think it’s an honest admission, because nobody knows if paid content will work.

Of course the argument for paid content is about defending commercial news organisations and not journalism. Problem is the two aren’t mutually exclusive anymore.

For starters, it excludes the competition from government subsidised media – SBS and ABC - who probably can’t wait for News Corp and Fairfax to start charging for their content. A senior news person at SBS told me just yesterday that he “WANTS those sites to charge!” – not because he believes in paid content, he doesn’t, but because it certainly brightens his future.

James Murdoch (son of Rupert), made a similar, but misguided, point on the weekend with regard to the BBC saying that it inhibited the ability of commercial competitors to invest in news and implied it could put newspapers out of business. But News Corporation (of which James is chairman and chief executive) has only increased the threat of sites like the BBC and even ABC and SBS by deciding to put its content behind a paywall. The issue is not about good journalism, which the BBC, ABC and SBS have proved they can do well online, but about saving “Big Media” (a point Colgan made in the heading of his Punch piece.)

The question then is what is the value proposition of news sites like theage.com.au, smh.com.au and news.com.au. What can they do better than anyone else? The answer in their CURRENT form is not much. That’s exactly why most people would not be willing to pay for what they can essentially find elsewhere for free. Quite simply their product isn’t good enough. This isn’t bad news for journalism.

The issue of paid content  has led to some internal questions about ways news organisations can better what they offer their readers. And if news sites had any doubts about how they are “valued” by their readers, I think the Punch comments should go someway in cementing the fact that it’s not very high.

It’s not all bad news though.

I think there is commercial value in a number of niche sites that news rooms are still in a strong position, in Australia at least, to make an impact on. Advertising has proved successful on a number of these sites overseas – advertising is highly relevant to their audiences, which means a higher CPM (the current ad standard of measuring per thousand impressions). And because I could never imagine doing it any better, I think the Niche Manifesto is one of the best pieces written on this area,  in fact on media. Ever. Read it.

As Umair Haque so eloquently puts it:

“The 21st century’s great challenge isn’t selling the same old “product” better: it’s learning to make radically better stuff in the first place.”

As for whether paid content will work or not remains to be seen. There is still the question about the ethics of it. And journalists do like bang that drum when they need to.

Do we really want a world where knowledge is a privilege for a few willing and able to pay for content? Don’t we all have the right to be informed?  A point BBC business editor Robert Preston made earlier this year when he asked whether it was desirable we have news only available to those who will pay for it.

Free online news has increased our democratic value, why would we the Fourth Estate want to take that right to be informed away from us now? What are we protecting ? Journalism or big media?

Disclaimer: I’ve written a few pieces for The Punch. I don’t get paid, which only adds a whole new layer of irony. As long as people are willing to produce good content for free, news organisations are stuffed. I’ll save that for another day