In my adult life, I have never bought a newspaper purely in order to read the news contained within it. On some occasions, I've bought a newspaper for a relative, or, in cases where newsagents will give you a free bottle of water that costs more than the paper itself, it has made financial sense to buy a newspaper in order to get a 'freebie'.

I've grown up with access to news on the radio, on the television and, more recently, on the internet and, in nearly every case, it has been either supported by advertising or supported by the television license. For those of you who don't live in the UK, just like you need a licence to drive a motor vehicle, you need a licence to watch television over here. Well, okay, not really, but we pay for a television license as a way of funding public broadcasts by way of the BBC.

In a professional sense, I'm self taught, and I keep myself up-to-date via numerous methods. In some cases, I'll book myself on to a training course or I'll attend a conference. I've joined grassroots enthusiast groups like the Multipack, where I can listen to the opinions and thoughts of my peers. Occasionally, I'll even buy a book. But I've mostly taught myself by reading articles, tutorials and technical documents on the internet. 

There is great content out there on the web for both of these purposes, and the vast majority of it is free or supported by advertising.

Charging for web content

On June 1st, Rupert Murdoch starts his experiment on the future of news on the internet, by charging for access to content from The Times and The Sunday Times. Existing subscribers get free access, but those of us who don't and who want access will need to pony up £1 for 24 hours of access, or £2 for the week.

Whilst he'll be the first in the UK to do so, he's not the first in the world. Many are skeptical, many are hopeful. Some are even both in equal measures, but the future of the venture is uncertain - the New York Times erected their paywall in September 2005 and then tore it down two years later. Then, in January, they announced they'll be trying it again next year.

It's uncertain how long this venture will last, or how successful it will be. I expect that many of The Times' senior management are secretly resigned to the fact that traffic will fall, and advertising revenue along with it. One thing is for sure: just as I won't be picking up a newspaper at the newsagents, I won't be signing up to read content on the new timesplus.co.uk website. 

The internet is full of websites where business models have been conjured up around valuable content, and not just in sectors that deliver specialist news. In the web design and development sector, there are sites dedicated to premium content - exclusive articles, tutorials and videos - which are only accessible if you pay up front per-item, or subscribe on a monthly or annual basis.

Think Vitamin, which changed from being it's own entity, and became Carsonified's blog, full of posts contained within the former site and regularly updated with snippets, articles and collections of links, has also recently announced a subscription offering. Like other sector-specific websites, it will offer exclusive content, bundle in tutorials, and give access to 'online conferences' and video libraries from real-world conferences.

But just like The Times' membership offering, I have no plans to part with my cash to use any of them.

Our definitions of 'value' may vary

Everything has a value. The wife and I happily pay £145.50 for our television licence. Our public broadcasting tax, if you will, gives us access to the content from the BBC, free of advertising, unencumbered by the direction and influence of a media magnate, and - in my opinion, for what it's worth - full of impartial reporting and well-balanced opinions.

Those of you that read newspapers pay to read them - either daily at the newsagent or train station, or monthly or annually via subscriptions - because you place a value on the news you read. But in my opinion, I can get my internet news fix at plenty of other places on the web where I won't have to spend £2 a week.

Similarly, I can get help, assistance and tutorials on the internet. There are plenty of resources available out there which aim to become a free, open and easily accessible database of knowledge, and they don't charge you to access the information you're seeking. 

I'd happily pay twice what I currently pay for access to the content I have access to from the BBC, I don't value what The Times has to offer at just over £100 per year. Don't misunderstand me here - if I thought the BBC's content or coverage was dismal, I'd be enraged by the fact that I had to pay for it, but in all the time I've paid for my own TV licence, I've never begrudged spending the money.

You might disagree, arguing that the BBC, like other media corporations which operate in the UK, should operate as a bona-fide business without 'state aid'. The Murdochs would probably agree with you, as it's no secret that they thoroughly dislike the BBC. News Corporation's UK companies get none of my £145.50 per year. Not that they need it - in the financial year ending 2009, the global organisation brought in revenues of over $30 billion.

But the financial aid isn't what they're worried about. James Murdoch stopped short of using the word monopoly, but the language he used in his MacTaggart lecture was quite clear:

The expansion of state-sponsored journalism is a threat to the plurality and independence of news provision, which are so important for our democracy. Dumping free, state-sponsored news on the market makes it incredibly difficult for journalism to flourish on the internet.

James Murdoch's MacTaggart Lecture — August 2009

Maybe, in the future, the BBC will be forced to operate with less revenue from the TV Licence. There is certainly a danger of this happening with a Cameron-headed government, as our current Prime Minister has repeatedly called for the funding to be top-sliced and divvied up between it's commercial competitors.

But just like the training companies, and those offering premium tutorials and access to online conferences who don't have state-funded organisations to compete with, there are greater, much more powerful competitors out there on the internet than the BBC.

Hyperlocal, citizen journalism and grassroots enthusiasts

With regards to local journalism, I'm not sure that it's quite ready to compete with the media corporations on national issues, and probably won't be for quite some time, but I do think that as time goes by and as the media corporations focus more on national issues and pull more resources away from local publications, they will leave a gaping void ready to be filled by local citizen journalism.

I remember speaking with Philip John (@philipjohn) at an early Coventry and Warwickshire Social Media Café event on this very topic last year. He, along with other journalists who had been made redundant from their local Trinity Mirror publication, started up the Lichfield Blog, which is a far better local news website than some of the sites run by traditional newspapers.

Closer to home for me, there are bunches of enthusiasts out there on web design and web development. Some of the very same people who speak at the conferences, seminars and training sessions that I've attended in the past are happy to share their knowledge openly, for free, on their own personal websites.

jQuery for Designers contains loads of great tutorials on how to use jQuery in your websites, and those without the knowledge can benefit from the skills of a JavaScript wizard. The extremely well produced and easy-to-follow video tutorials that Remy Sharp (@rem) publishes, allow those without the skills or know-how to get the desired effects they're looking for, at no cost.

Regardless or whether it's journalism or specialist content, it's my opinion that local journalists and enthusiasts on specialist topics will cover their subject with much more zeal and passion than their national or corporate counterparts. Content and articles which are created on subjects that affect, or which are close to the authors' hearts, will be much more authentic, honest and relevant to those who consume them.

As for me, instead of paying for content directly where I have no relationship with the publisher, I'd much rather use Remy's resources and then buy his book, or buy him a pint if I bump into him at a conference. With regards to local journalism, I'd much rather listen to a local resident's account of issues than a corporation's view on the matter.

In conclusion

Traditional, newspaper journalism as we know it is beginning it's end. How news is covered and the way it is published in new media, via websites, mobile devices, iPhone apps has significantly changed the industry, but the highly paid brains at the top of these organisations believe that they need to charge for their content online, and that this will save them.

I'm not so sure, and neither's John Gruber. This quote, from his excellent article on Pay Walls, sums it up succinctly right at the end, referring to the opinions of David Simon - the former Baltimore Sun crime reporter, and co-creator of The Wire:

Simon, like everyone else who thinks online subscription fees can save the newspaper industry, is effectively arguing that the world will change to support newspapers. The truth is that newspapers must change to adapt to the world. Just because the extinction of newspapers would be a tragic loss doesn't mean it won't happen.

John Gruber — July 2009

As for the websites that offer premium content, tutorials and the like, their future is less certain. We all know that websites can offer community, but nothing they offer comes close to actually meeting your peers in the real world.

Even then, while conferences are valuable for networking alone, groups like the Multipack have shown me that the value of grassroots meet-ups and spending time with your peers in an informal setting, sharing knowledge and experience over a beer or two, is much more valuable than anything you'll ever pay for - even if it's less than a dollar a day.