This one came as a bit of a shock to be honest. Just after Rupert Murdoch famously acquired the Wall Street Journal in 2007, he hinted at opening that newspaper’s website up for free access. Which made me happy. I love reading newspapers, but I probably on average buy one every week or two (and it’s usually the weekend edition, which I can labour over for two days). On a daily basis though, I will visit a combination of the following for news and insight:

- The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk)

- Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk)

- Financial Times (http://www.ft.com)

- New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com)

As well as a wide range of blogs and magazine websites. I like to stay informed, and it helps me to do my job more effectively and keep an eye on what’s going on in the world. Every one of the above, with a slight exception in the FT (you can read a number of articles for free and then there is a small fee), is 100% free to access. You can read practically every single article you could in the actual paper by using these websites. You can do the same with most mainstream newspapers, including the Independent, Telegraph etc. Most newspapers seem to be embracing this concept, and we’ve even seem some innovative developments, like the NYTimes Skimmer (which is a web 2.0 God-send!):

http://prototype.nytimes.com/gst/articleSkimmer/

But today Murdoch announced that from next Summer, he’ll be charging for access to (amongst others) the Times, Sun & News of the World. Firstly this smacks of corporate protectionism in an age where open access to information is fast becoming the norm. It seems like a knee-jerk reaction based on poor results from advertising in the actual newspapers, and looks like, in my opinion, a decision based on insecurity and a lack of understanding of how media consumption will change over the coming years. It’s also a bit naive to think that the average Sun or News of the World reader in the UK will be willing to take out a debit/credit card to access articles. And although I do like the British Times, quality of content has notably gone downhill recently, so I certainly won’t be paying to access that – my payments, if any, will be going toward the FT for top-quality, reporting, which is relatively free of political bias.

According to the Guardian: “Among quality newspapers, Murdoch singled out the Daily Telegraph’s run of stories about MPs’ expenses as an example of news for which consumers would be willing to pay, describing it as a “great scoop”. I disagree. The Telegraph got lucky, and they had the resources to pursue this story way beyond its natural course. But these stories spread like wildfire, and I think more people would have picked up the details from blogs repeating the main points, and from colleagues & friends emailing what they’ve read or heard. I just can’t see a situation where hundreds of thousands of people will pay for access to a newspaper website to read about a single story, when today’s media world is so distributed and open.

A Twitter associate, BevaniteEllie asked the question “Will Murdoch charging for Internet news help the left?”. More broadly, from a political point of view, we should be asking ourselves if people like Rupert Murdoch hold the same power as they once did over politics. Is this knee-jerk reaction yet another sign of the dwindling influence newspapers have? Famously, would-be British prime ministers (and particularly Tony Blair in the mid-90s) sought approval from Rupert Murdoch. A friendly run of stories in the Sun could turn the electoral tide here. That was a long time ago, and the world has changed permanently. Media power is now so diffuse that no single “mogul” can hope to have the same influence over an election as Rupert Murdoch has held for far too long. The successful media companies of the 21st century will be open, dynamic, fast-reacting (whilst hopefully keeping hold of good journalism practices) and rooted in social media; I would much rather live in that world than in the world where an unelected newspaperman can wield such power.

If this latest move from News Corp is a sign that the times are changing, then I welcome it. It’s just a shame that the great newspapers of the 20th century aren’t more able to embrace the changes that we’ve seen since the start of the Internet age.