If newsproviders continue to give away their product-then they simply devalue it

I couldn't agree with the sentiments of Walter Issacson more in his article in Time yesterday.

Issacson argues that the business model is flawed when

Newspapers have more readers than ever. Their content, as well as that of newsmagazines and other producers of traditional journalism, is more popular than ever — even among young people

The problem is that nobody wants to pay.One solution for Issacson is the pay wall one.

Newspapers and magazines traditionally have had three revenue sources: newsstand sales, subscriptions and advertising. The new business model relies only on the last of these. That makeshttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif for a wobbly stool even when the one leg is strong. When it weakens — as countless publishers have seen happen as a result of the recession — the stool can't possibly stand.

But here is another idea

Another group that benefits from free journalism is Internet service providers. They get to charge customers $20 to $30 a month for access to the Web's trove of free content and services.

So why should they not pay to subsidise the model?

John Slattery has some reservations-could this work in the UK where so much news, sport and other content is available free online from the BBC?

But also thinks that this may work

Charging for content forces discipline on journalists: they must produce things that people actually value. I suspect we will find that this necessity is actually liberating. The need to be valued by readers — serving them first and foremost rather than relying solely on advertising revenue — will allow the media once again to set their compass true to what journalism should always be about."

But one thing is for certain.If newspapers continue to give away their content for free,they only devalue the product