“On Friday 27 November I was lying in bed when Simon Hattenstone’s breathtakingly good feature on the death of Tory activist Elliott Johnson on the Guardian online popped up on my phone.
The following day in the newsagent, was I going to spend £2.70 on The Guardian, when I had already read the best thing in it, or £1.50 on The Times which was filled with lots of things I had not yet read?” stated Dominic Ponsford the last 16th of January on his article on pressgazette.co.uk.
The Times, in 2010, faced a pre-tax loss of £54m after its decision of making a paywall for the contents online. Last January, while The Guardian announced the 20% future cuts of its budget, The Times and The Sunday Times were in profit. It surely cannot be simplified just with the paywall.
But, what if?
Online accessibility balances on a fine line. Everything depends on how much the audience is willing to value a certain content. In a free-access internet reality, people are exigent. It must be something which is worth to pay for, otherwise something similar can be found online.
The Times, in its consistency, remained of the idea that quality journalism has to be paid; and, maybe, that is the only choice which will permit good journalism to survive.