Will Newspapers Survive the "Free to Fee" Transisition?

I recently read this AP article on StarTribune.com about many newspapers making the decision to charge for on-line content this Fall and made me wonder whether or not such a transition will be successful?

In general, newspapers have not charged for online content (with the exception of archived articles) and readers, including myself, have grown accustomed to free information available at the click of the mouse. So how will these readers respond?

This is a very difficult question to answer, but a very important one.  I can't speak for other readers, but I personally would not pay for a newspapers site online with all the other sources out there including broadcast news websites and the local television newscasts that I don't have to pay a dime for.

With that said I think there is a way newspapers could make money through subscribers without pushing away those people who visit their websites for free content and that is to charge only for in depth content that a subscriber could not find anywhere else.

To illustrate a point I'll refer to a website I visit often...ESPN.com. I visit ESPN.com on a daily basis and get free access to the usual content that I could find on nearly any other major sports website (the ESPN.com writer may have a little different take on the content, but for the most part its the same).  I do not; however, have access to ESPN.com's most unique and in depth content. To get access to that content I would have to subscribe at $6.50/month for month to month, $3.33/month for a year or $2.50/month for two years. That subscription would get me access to all ESPN.com's content and a hard copy of ESPN: the magazine.

Newspapers could follow a similar model that would entice their most devoted readers and news junkies to pay for in depth content while not alienating their casual readers.  This also eliminates some of the risk of web traffic to a paper's site dropping off substantially when they convert to paid content making it more attractive for ad sales.

I'm interested in what everyone else thinks about this subject, so make sure to leave your comments.

What is Journalism?

The profession of journalism is in the midst of a transformation due to the growth of digital media in the last few years...Newspapers border on the brink of extinction, everyday more and more voices call for the audiences attention through blogs, Twitter, Facebook, etc. and the public trust of the media continues to decline, but do all these challenges facing the profession of journalism mean the definition of journalism itself has changed? or even needs to be adapted?

The answer to those questions is no. Journalism as a principle was created to correctly inform and protect society from misinformation that may be distributed, but corrupt organizations (whether government or private) that has the power to control the flow of information. Over the course of history some have tried to corrupt the principle of journalism by calling themselves journalists and embellishing stories (e.g. Yellow Journalism) or serving biased interests, but that has not and will never be journalism.

Journalism today has seen drastic changes in the way it is delivered to its audience, but the principle remains the same. Those individuals who seek out true information and credible report it to an audience are journalists and practice journalism. Those who don't follow this pattern no matter their skill as a writer...they are still just story tellers.