Under certain conditions I think I would pay for a online version of a newspaper.
The newspaper needs to

• be affordable
  
• have unique content / discussions / insights
• be of a consistent high quality
• not have too much advertisements (or advertisments that focus on things I like / need)
  

For my daily dose on news articles I will continue to go to free news websites or watch TV.
Permalink | Report

I don't know of any traditional news papers that I would pay to read online (though I don't pay for any newspapers to be delivered to me either)

And anything by Rupert would be on the bottom of my list.

But if a service was provided that could truly tailor news to what I want to read, then I would pay. It would have to be some crafty A.I. that didn't just look for keywords, but did a bit more work to ferret out the good stuff.
Permalink | Report

I already pay for news online. I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal online. I think it is the best paper for business and financial news out there. It's true that I can get each article from another source, it's great to have them all right in front of me on the website. It's expensive, but it's certainly worth it to me.

On the other hand, I don't think I would subscribe to a traditional paper online. The New York Times, Washington Post, etc are all just regular news that I can get pretty much everywhere else. So that's a replaceable commodity that I'm not willing to pay for.
Permalink | Report

I don't have any reason to pay Murdoch, or any other newspaper publisher, for my news. There are plenty of good online news sites out there, with free access to all of the content.

He's going to have to come up with another way to make money, especially with the economy still not being super strong and many folks still trying to save money wherever they reasonably can.
Permalink | Report