It's funny watching the comments become more hostile as I read down the page, as non-regular CJR readers dive in from around the internet. One of the downsides of twitter etc. is that any conversation can be quickly hijacked by a stream of people saying "I won't pay for anything," "information wants to be free" and the like. (And then the inevitable fightback with cries of "The Internet Sucks".) The comment system encourages this kind of argument, but more nuance is needed, of course.

Simon senses something which I think many newspaper people do, and evangelists for Free often don't: a free web-based newspaper is, by definition, a different beast to a print-based newspaper in terms of content. The web is ill-suited to 10,000 word articles, and its instant-sharing nature - which seems to get ever more accelerated - is ill-suited to that sort of conversation. That doesn't mean that good, interesting stuff doesn't happen in free-world, and maybe Simon doesn't give enough credit there. But the advocates of free - and I mean those who argue it *should* be the model, not those who merely argue it *will* be the model - don't seem to acknowledge the sheer investment in time and personnel this kind of in-depth journalism takes. Even if you're a huge believer in crowdsourcing you have to accept there are some things that need the professional touch. Even in the time of fast food we still cook sometimes, and people realise how satisfying it is. Similarly, even in a time of free quick-share information, some people, some of the time - probably better-off people - will always want to sit and read the paper, and will pay for the highest quality stuff. Saying "information wants to be free" ignores the fact that the best journalism offers more than information, but an experience - a story well told, etc - and that stuff can, I'm 100% certain, be charged for.

Where I'm sceptical is in regional. I've no doubt the NYT and WaPo must go this route, and I've no doubt they will. I suspect sooner or later one non-profit website will emerge in the US offering free view-from-nowhere newsto those who want to avoid the more partisan HuffPo media. But my gut tells me people won't pay for a local newspaper in addition to a national - and make no mistake, if the NYT and WaPo go this route, they will need to nationalise and internationalise themselves fast. If your growing revenue stream is from paying subscribers, you need, at minimum, a version of your site which sidelines the local content for them to use. If you're subscribing to (say) the Economist and NYT online for $20 a month, are you going to pay another $10 for local news?