The influence of the Times and the Sunday Times could wane as online readership dives, writes Chris Barton.
In 10 weeks spent living in Cambridge, England, completing my Qantas Wolfson Press Fellowship, I learned many things: how to punt on the Cam; how to pass the port to the left at Formal Hall; and that if you chain your bicycle to the front fence, the Head Porter will become apoplectic.
I also learned quite a lot about how, largely thanks to Prince Charles and his 1984 "carbuncle speech", a mainstream architecture press was born in Britain. It was part of my project on architecture journalism - the fruits of which I hope to put to use here - but that's another story.
The best part was rediscovering the pleasure of reading. As a journalist I do read a lot. But it's mostly not because I want to, but because I need to. With the privilege of time out from work, I was spoiled for choice - college libraries everywhere and the magnificent Cambridge University library.
It was in Cambridge, on May 26, that I came across an arresting headline: "Everything you'd expect from the Times: quality journalism at a price worth paying." The piece was a justification, telling readers why they would soon have to pay for the Times and Sunday Times online content - the beginnings of Rupert Murdoch's much-heralded plan to wrest control of the internet. The article indicated the future of journalism, not to mention Murdoch's empire, was at stake.
Last week, the first phase of the so-called pay wall of Wapping (where Murdoch's British papers including the Sun and the News of the World are produced) came to pass. Site entry to the Times now costs £1 ($2.20) for a day or £2 for a week, or a special introductory offer of 30 days' access for a quid. Depending on who you talk to, Murdoch is either a genius or King Canute, trying to command the tide.
The Guardian's John Crace of Digested Read fame, was quick to respond. "A very warm welcome to all our readers from the Times. Call it a belief in an open internet or care in the community if you like, but here at the Guardian we can offer everything you ever wanted from the Times - and more - for nothing."
Observer columnist John Naughton says Murdoch's experiment would at last provide some answers to several great imponderables of the web. Such as whether a generation brought up with the belief that online content is free will now pay, and, if so, how much.
Unlike many net gurus, Naughton, who also runs the Press Fellowship programme, doesn't go in for predictions. He takes the view that when you're in the middle of a revolution, it's not easy to see past the barricades.
As he points out the mainstream web is just 17 years old. Try to imagine predicting in 1472 - 17 years after Johannes Gutenberg's press first printed Bibles - just what that extraordinary invention would bring. In truth, none of us really have any idea what is going to happen with Murdoch's bold/foolhardy venture any more than we know about what else will happen on the net. The most we do know today is that the net is "a global machine for springing surprises".
Yes, sometimes people will pay for specialist content such as that of the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times and the Economist, but general content is a different beast. It's a safe bet the Times and Sunday Times online readership will plummet. So too, says Naughton, their global influence "as they block entry by search engines and thereby cut themselves off from the so-called 'link economy' of the web".
But on June 16 - Bloomsday - I got a glimpse of what might lie ahead. It's celebrated the world over, in honour of Leopold Bloom, hero of James Joyce's novel Ulysses in which all the action takes place on 16 June 1904. The celebrations at Cambridge involved readings and the consumption of gorgonzola sandwiches and burgundy. Naughton prefaced his reading, by holding up his iPod touch, saying Ulysses could now always be in his pocket to read anywhere, anytime.
Coincidentally, when I got back to New Zealand, there was a Kobo e-reader on my desk loaded with 100 books, including Ulysses.
These sorts of e-readers will play a big part in the future of print. What I like about them is the way they may let the e-generation discover the pleasure of reading. Especially the long read, which is so much under threat in today's journalism, perverted by the notion that people no longer can, or want to, read long features.
Instead of going down the pay wall path, I reckon a really bold experiment for the Times - or indeed the Herald - would be to buy something like 200,000 e-readers, iPads perhaps, and give them to subscribers.
