As Boston's two major dailies head towards a seeming financial death spiral, it's time once again to ask whether they should be charging for access to online content.
When the computer age dawned, a "hacker ethic" emerged, holding that information should be free and accessible to all. (Steven Levy's fascinating book, Hackers, is especially recommended.) That ethic has permeated the Web, which in less than a decade has become an incredible free library of human knowledge and a great source of informed and diverse commentary.
But wait a minute: What happens when we're not paying for it? Doesn't it mean that someone else is basically writing for free, or at least isn't being compensated fairly for their labor?
That may be OK on the blogosphere, which allows any of us to post and comment. However, this expectation of free access is contributing to the death of our newspapers and threatening to turn journalism from a vocation into an avocation. (Uh, one gets paid, the other doesn't.)
Like many people, I've got my quarrels with the Globe and the Herald. But some of my issues may well have to do with the fact that their newsrooms are emptying with each new round of cuts and falling ad revenues. Would their situations change if they charged, say, a buck a week for full access? Would those of us who are now so used to reading their content for free be up in arms or realize that newspapers need revenue to stay open and pay their reporters and columnists?
Community journalism complements but cannot replace professional news coverage. If Boston goes from being a two-paper town to something considerably less, the result will be a huge void in our civic culture.
