Paywalls: is this the end of free content on the web?

As of the 2nd of July, The Times has now placed its content behind a 'paywall'. This term, a derivative of the term firewall, means that you can only access The Times' content if you are willing to pay for it. This is an important step forward in the debate about content on the web, as Rupert Murdoch puts his money, or his readers' money, where his mouth is.

The emergence of the web has had a dramatic impact on newspapers. Most obviously because, by and large, all of their printed content goes onto their websites, which removes the need to buy the printed version. Whilst newspapers and their associated magazines take a lot of money in advertising revenue, the loss of the newspaper's cover price as an income stream is clearly going to hurt. This also has a nasty by-product in that it makes newspapers more reliant on their advertisers' agenda. (This, incidentally, is why there is no editorially independent women's magazine that can criticise the beauty industry.)

Of course, with a reduced income, the newspapers have less money to employ journalists and so, the argument goes, the quality of journalism will decline. And this is the primary argument for charging, that newspapers are providing a service and that has to be paid for by some means.

But is that really the case and what are the alternatives?

Firstly, let's look at the question of the quality of journalism. I can't see that there is much point in pulling the tabloids into this argument - most of their readers know exactly the quality of journalism that they are buying - so let's concentrate on the broadsheets, who are the main players in this debate (after all, Murdoch hasn't put a paywall around The Sun's website).

Erwin Knoll said that "Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for that rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge." As it happens, I can vouch for this argument. Earlier this year an incident took place at the school where I am a governor. A young girl from a difficult background brought a small knife to school. She bragged about this on the bus and said she had a list of people to get. Staff at school confiscated the knife and the list without any danger or trouble and then notified the police. Here is that story in the Daily Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7519842/Schoolgirl-found-carrying-a-knife-and-hit-list-of-teachers-and-pupils.html. Quite apart from the obvious discrepancies between the story and what actually happened, it's worth noting the picture of the knife - a library photo, far larger than the knife concerned - and the emphasis on the stab vests, which police actually wear as a matter of course.

If this is the quality of journalism in our broadsheets, what are we in danger of losing? And, whilst anecdotal, the story above is far from an isolated example and there are far more sinister abuses of journalistic power, particularly around elections. (One thinks, of course, of Bush's first election "victory".) Whilst we have a Press Complaints Commission run by the press, specifically newspaper editors, we are not going to see the very improvement in journalistic standards and quality that is required to render newspaper journalism a profession worth protecting.

So, the argument for 'saving' journalism is not black and white. However, we clearly want our news from somewhere, which brings me to my second question, what are the alternatives?

As it happens, there are a lot of people out there commenting on the world around us, people who are free from the constraints of editors and newspaper ideology. For example, in the two years leading up to the credit crunch, a number of financial bloggers, some of whom published books, were accurately predicting what was going to happen and when. (In fact, there is a parallel in the Liberal Democrat Vince Cable who, effectively freed from toeing any party line, was able to air his concerns about the impending financial disaster.)

In his book 'Cognitive Surplus', Clay Shirky rightly points out that as publishing becomes easier, so the average quality declines. This is quite true but, to follow what has happened with printed books as an analogy, the fact there is more content being produced actually leads to a raising of the bar at the top of the quality scale. I believe that what will evolve is ways for people to find that good content and, in the same way that best seller book lists and the community on Amazon help us to find books to read, so we will point one another to the quality blogs and user published content. Indeed, one could well see a future newspaper website being a portal through to that content, some of which may be commissioned through advertising but probably not.

So, is this the end of free content on the web? The answer, simply, is no. I believe Murdoch has made a mistake here and, indeed, overestimated his own ability to impose his worldview on an evolving environment, one that is moving away from the models he desires. I won't pretend that I know exactly what the future looks like but I do know it will be one in which we pull our news from a variety of sources, channelled to us by portals and subscription services.