He added: "Let’s face facts. A business model that assumes we can’t charge for the content we produce assumes that our content has no value in the online market.

Dow Jones encompasses the Wallstreet Journal, which does charge for on-line content, and makes a profit doing so.

"In pure economic terms, such a business model has to mean one of two things: Either there is no demand for the content or there are substitute suppliers of that content sufficient to drive the price almost to zero."

Ar-r-r-r, there's the rub!

For days at this points, I've been hearing serious conjecture about what is going on with Tiger Woods, and what was really behind a one-car accident on his own property. Someone should pay me to read this crap.

I've yet to see any mention of the East Anglia University smoking-gun emails that prove definitively that climate scientists have been bought off by social engineering interests. Where is the Peter Galbraith story about he and Joe Biden shilling for Kurd independence in exchange for a piece of the Iraqi oil action? Now those stories would have had value.

On the other hand, who might see value in keeping that information out of the papers and nightly newscasts?

Right.

Les Hinton blames "digital thieves" for the state of the newspaper industry today, but the reality is starting them right in the face. As the broadcast networks and cable news channels were breaking the news of the State Dinner party crashers, image after image of elite media notables flashed by, escorting their mates and dates across the red carpet. One has to wonder if a reporter who really did their job would be invited to the White House...I suspect they wouldn't be.

The problem isn't that the content doesn't have value, but that newspapers offer that value to their political masters rather than to their subscribers.