The Paywall Dilemma - Newspapers, Radio & The Koch Bros.

This web page allowed millions of people to breathe a huge sigh of relief last week:

It marked the end of a tense drama-filled week that had the entire city of Boston on edge.

The Boston Globe provided some great reporting, but also provided a huge public service by making their website 'free' for the week. Note the yellow bar at the top of the screen-grab: "BostonGlobe.com is currently available to all readers."

For a week the Globe dropped their pay-wall.

More and more newspapers, including the Globe, the New York Times, the Baltimore Sun and the Seattle Times no longer make their content free on the web.  It doesn't matter if you're trying to read it on your computer, or your phone, your tablet, your Roku player or your PlayStation.  If you want to read the stories, you have to pay.

It's not surprising that many newspapers are going the 'subscription route' for their on-line content. The newspaper business has suffered dramatically in the internet age. I've heard more than one newspaper person complain, "It's no wonder we're losing money, we keep giving out content for free!"

But I still remember my first job, at age 14, delivering the Washington Post in Martinsburg, West Virgina. My boss, a gruff cigar-chomping character who was always counting paper bundles - and money - always called that money we collected from customers "pocket change."  He said the "pocket change" was for us. The real money, he said, the money that pays for the paper was the page after page of advertising in those newspapers.

It is painful to see great newspapers like the Seattle P-I and the Rocky Mountain News fold. And it's tough to see some papers like the New Orleans Times-Picayune reduce staff and publish only a few days a week.

It's also troubling to see that some 'investors' may be attempting to buy troubled newspapers, not for journalism or profit, but for political gain. For example, see this story about the Koch brothers and the Tribune company.

I don't know the answer to the newspaper dilemma.  Do they try to survive with online advertising money?  Or do they charge readers for online content?  Or some combination of both?

Radio, as you may know, has also been impacted by exploding internet technology, but not to the same degree as newspapers.  Radio still gets it's support one of two ways.  There's commercial radio, which makes money by running commercials...a lot of commercials, getting a lot of money from advertisers.  That's why you'll often have to put up with 15 or 20 minutes - or more - of commercials in an hour.

Then there are public radio stations, like KSER.  We don't play any commercials.  And, of course, listening to the radio is free.  We have no way to charge you for listening. I suppose we could copy the newspaper model, and start charging those people who want to listen to us online.  But that doesn't seem smart when most listening is still over-the-air not online...plus, you have so many other options.

KSER relies on listener support. That's why, a few times a year, you hear those pledge drives on the radio.  Or maybe you receive the occasional letter from KSER asking for a financial donation. That's our primary means of support. You!

But for every listener who makes a pledge of support there are hundreds more who listen but never donate. That is public radio's challenge.

So if you can figure out how to solve these challenges, please let us know. In the meantime we'll keep doing our best to bring you local news, commentary, information and entertainment.  And we'll keep hoping that other media outlets are able to avoid reductions or shutdowns...or buyouts by the Koch brothers.