The recent Time Magazine story about using micro-payments to charge for online newspaper content has set off a healthy debate between Journalists and bloggers. I do not believe the strategy discussed in the Time Magazine article is the ultimate answer, however, I do think it is an important step in the right direction.While I am in my early 20s and part of the so-called “Facebook Generation”, I tend to disagree with my fellow free-loading cohorts. Raised on Napster, pirated software, and free access to most newspaper/magazine articles, we are a generation that tends to wonder why exactly we should pay for this stuff.

But think about it like this: If Starbucks gave you free coffee since your early teens, you too would be completely shocked if all of the sudden those greedy bastards asked you for $2 for a simple cup of brewed coffee. What an outrage it would be. After all, aren’t they making enough money by selling pounds of coffee at the grocery store? But, as stupid as this example is, it does have a point. What we have in the newspaper industry now is that those people who paid for the product in the grocery store are slowly being replaced by a generation of people who were raised on the free stuff. Oh, and we also have this other minor thing, the MOST SEVERE FREAKIN’ GLOBAL ECONOMIC CRISIS in decades.

So when the subject of having to pay for newspaper stories is mentioned, it is sure to anger the young people who have grown accustomed to getting everything for free. Also, bloggers who link to stories and call themselves “citizen journalists” will be outraged that they might actually have to pick up the phone and do some real reporting. And honestly, who wants to do that crap? Who wants to actually collect boring bits of information from dozens of sources and try to convey it in a meaningful way that informs the reader? Nah, it’s easier to just link to it.

When I came across this post I thought that the author really summed up most of the reasons young people and bloggers would oppose paying for online content. I have left her original reasons in bold and have added my own comments below. Actually, this was much easier than coming up with my own list of 10. That would have actually required some work. But since the author speaks highly about open-source journalism and the “link economy”, I’m sure she won’t mind.

1. Nothing beats free

Nothing in life is free!

2. This completely compromises the link economy

Who cares? Will it help a real journalist keep his job and give people crucial information about the real economy?

3. It’s very 2000

So is food and shelter. Our local newspaper, the St. Louis Post Dispatch, has been laying off people left and right. How many bloggers make enough money to support a family of four?

4. It’s uncreative

Yes, of course. There are more creative way to make money by giving the news away for free. What comes to mind is more advertising, less staff, even more advertising, even less staff. And when all that fails you can always ask for donations.

5. It’s failed in the past

So has peace in the middle east and free-market capitalism. Once something doesn’t work you should never attempt it again?

6. Mircopayments puts open-source journalism years behind

Once again, who cares? I want to get my news from somebody who knows what they’re talking about.

7. It’s never been done before

The Wall Street Journal is doing it with great success. Also, the internet was never done before at one point. And depending on how you answer the Chicken/Egg question, sex was never done before at one point. I think it’s safe to say that trying new things has worked out pretty good for Homo sapiens.

8. We’re not talking about ringtones here

No we’re not. A free and healthy press is essential for the survival of democracy. Ringtones are annoying clips of bad songs that always go off at the most embarrassing times.

9. It leaves out the reader

Huh? I don’t even understand this argument.

In a time where the most successful Web sites focus on the needs and wants of users (Read: Facebook and YouTube), it seems foolish to take attention off of the needs of the readers and focus on how journalists can do their jobs more effectively. Afterall, isn’t journalism supposed to be a “public calling?” Why not serve the people, listen to them?

10. Give them a reason to pay!

How about because it’s not free??? This goes back to my Starbucks example from earlier. Our generation has been brought up on free content. If newspapers continue to give their product away for free, we will gladly continue to read it for free.