Very true, princess_dashco.  I believe the lasting models will provide a wide array of options of how we get the news.  I think we will end up using multiple devices to access our news, based on interest, source, etc.

I think the future will allow, due to advancements and development of the internet, us to meet our individual interests through a wider range of choices.  Smart companies will provide a multiple of solutions.  That's what customer service is, solving the customer's problems.

DHagar

You right DHagar, but e-readers need more time to spread out to "common people" in the future nearby. People like me still love to hold their newspapers while sitting on sofa to read. Screen's light handicaps people eyes especially those who spend  most of time before all kind of electronic devices ( I mean TV, computers, cellphones, smartphones, e-readers...). When I compare my mom's generation, to one's of my nieces and nephews, I notice that today, many them start wearing glasses around five years old. And I think, this is due to screen light. Of course, people have news on the go with their smart phones or e-readers, but their eyes might pay for it.

Hey Nicole,

In a bid to stay relevant, a newspaper in Belgium has come out with its first 3D version, complete with cardboard viewing glasses. I wonder what you would look like in one of those cardboard viewing glasses!! You should give it a try.

Good point, Nicole. I guess it comes down to how readers define "value." I personally don't value opinions, no matter how well informed, enough to pay for them. I was a big fan of Paul Krugman, but when TimesSelect came along I refused to sign up. It annoyed me that the Times gated off a section of the paper that's easier to produce than investigative stories and articles that require subject-matter expertise and carefully cultivated sources. I'd be willing to pay for that type of content, especially if it's at a price point that's a bargain compared to a paper subscription. Rob's interesting Publisher's Clearinghouse model could work here, too--a Political Portal subscription, for example, could connect you to exclusive cotent from the Times, the Washington Post, and a handful of similar outlets.

Also, I assume that advertisers would be willing to spend a premium to reach these political-, business-, or international-news junkies who are committed enough to pay for their content.

Paying for access to international/business/political content on the NYTimes is an interesting idea, Alan. The only thing is that in 2005 with "TimesSelect" the Times tried to charge for access to to op-ed columnists and news columnists. That model failed and they abandoned it. Your idea is a bit different. I wonder if that would work any better.

I agree that the next couple of years are going to be interesting because we're at a crossroads where media is concerned. People are changing the way they're willing to consume it, but the business models have yet to be discovered that will support this shift. I'm not sure I believe the iPad is going to make as big a difference to the media industry as many are claiming -- in large part because the iPad seems more likely to be a niche device, and not really a default device like the iPod.

I think you hit it right on.  Credibility is a big issue.  With online sites competing with one another to get the scoops many are reporting false information.  Whether it is an honest mistake or they just want to put anything up knowing that they may have to put a correction up later on.  Remember the first Tweets from the Ft. Hood shootings that had information wrong?  Yet, news outlets were reporting these as if they were vetted.  I would rather not get the information as it happens if it means that is verified.

I for one would love to see a "Publishers Clearing House" model with a flat fee or perhaps fees based on how many sites you subscribe to: 1-5, 5-10 etc.  You could mix and match what type of information you want to see.  I have so many bookmarks it's hard to keep up with them.

Great observations here all round. I'd like to add the reasons why I prefer to get news online vs. in newspapers or on TV. (And keep in mind that I'm a boomer.)

-- TV news programs no longer report the news as they used to; instead, they are filled with mini-documentaries, multiple talking heads, and special interest side "features" that detract from a simple delivery of straight news. Further, you have to cruise several TV stations to get the right mix of international, national, and regional news, compounding the time problem.

-- Online news is fast, and I can do all my zeroing in on key headlines in moments.

-- Newspapers deliver the news but it requires a physical effort to obtain and read the news, unless you commute on a bus or train and have time to do the paper justice.

-- Blogs are fun, but I don't go to them for news reports.

I actually have two points I'd like to raise.  The first one isn't new.  it's been raised before, but recently became a bit of a topic right here at IE: credibility.  Robert Hansen posted a piece entitled, Ex-Blogger Broke Unwritten Rules.  In the case of the fired blogger that Robert cites in the piece, there is some feeling out on the Web that InfoWorld was complicit, if not actively participating, in the deception.  I think that's illustrative.

Not that there is a perception of dishonesty as illustrated by Robert's piece.  Just that I don't think the Internet has really developed a good amount of ethical "capital" from which to become the primary news source.  Not yet.

But I think that may also be tied into my second point: is there a good, reliable business model in place for providing a profitable *and* reliable online news experience?  Maybe not.

See, I don't think Internet activity is monolithic.  We here at IE, for example, we discuss and we post and we bring up points, but we do so by referencing others for the information we glean.  I've got a link above that within IE, but my participation in the conversation there includes links to other Web sites, other sources of information.  In tech discussions, I might refer to Computerworld, PC Magazine, Engadget, [H]ardOCP, and other sites.  On political forums, I might bring up Huffington Post, Heritage Foundation, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Drudge Report, and any number of other sites.

Does that kind of interaction lend itself well to (just for examples) $19.95/month for the NY Times, $5/month for Engadget, $30/year for [H]ardOCP, and so on?

I'm thinking not.  I'm far from certain on that, but I'm thinking not.  I know that I have no intention of subscribing to each and every one of the sources I use today.  And I don't believe that I'm all that far outside the norm when it comes to this topic.

So here's an intriguing thought, especially given my passion for Net Neutrality.  If single sites and sources start to independently charge subscription fees, is that an opportunity for the kinds of paid access that I believe violates Net Neutrality without said subscription fees (EDIT: I'm referring to ISP's here)?  Or, perhaps, for a kind of online "Publisher's Clearing House" service that provides a flat fee for access to multiple sites?  Maybe I should patent that idea.  Then again "Adult" sites are already doing that, having individual sites with subscription fees, but also having "access pass" services where access to a number of sites is gained for a fee smaller than subscribing to each site individually.

Yet another example where these offensive, allegedly disliked sites seem to be ahead of the less provocative side of The Internet.

Terri, I think people may be willing to pay for "streams" of news and analysis. So in your example, conventional blogosphere opinions still won't command a premium, but perhaps specialized research that requires money and expertise to produce would be valuable enough to attract buyers.

But I was actually thinking about more general-interest outlets, such as newspapers. So, for example, in addition to a free version of the New York Times, which would include stories other pubs would cover, readers could subscribe to premium channels of international or business or political coverage. These would offer stories that readers couldn't get anywhere else and require in-depth work by prominent reporters and editors, and rack up the costs that go along with that kind of journalism.