The Cost of Free

The news that the Seattle Post Intelligencer was closing and shrinking to a small, Internet-only publication should be good news to those people (like me) who want to see journalism move to the digital age. But it isn't good news. Seattle loses its oldest newspaper and the true guts of the newsroom, hard and investigative news, is eviscerated, never again to work for the people of Seattle.

I've been a proponent of the positive changes the Internet has wrought from the beginning of the commercialization stage (circa '95). I've coded html, laughed at ridiculous dot-coms, embraced Web 2.0, played around with OS software, and initially decried the tactics of the music industry and RIAA. So I feel like I'm balanced on the issue of free stuff on the Internet. There is a cost to free. Just like the TV commercials that offer free gifts along with your purchase (YOU PAY ONLY SHIPPING), free has a cost on the Internet. Look at the cost of free:

• Traditional journalism is endangered because the ad revenue model of the Internet cannot replace the traditional advertising model
• Free classifieds have decimated newspapers and free classifieds papers to the point of extinction
• Free music has changed the landscape of the music industry
• Free software  - Open Source software is great - is everywhere, but who is actually paying for the development of it?
• Free movies now flood the market with the growth of bandwidth

In some form, people will ultimately pay for free. In music, it comes at the expense of the artists and record labels, who no longer receive revenue to back bands.  In film, it comes at the expense of movie companies, who lose out on revenue for future production. If this doesn't make you shed a tear, then consider the loss of journalism. It is the journalists who expose corruption, follow dirty money, promote transparency, and force leaders of all walks of life to maintain integrity. It is not called the fourth estate lightly. When we lose the people asking the hard questions of Wall St, by gaining the fluff journalists who ask Paris Hilton about her new boyfriend, we lose more than people. We lose our ability to know. We lose our ability to "smell a rat", "follow the money", and "catch them in the act".

In regards to big cities, the competition between big newspapers is what often leads to the best investigative reporting. Sure, it leads to some exaggeration and sometimes pulling the trigger before confirmation. But it keeps us informed and it keeps a lot of entities honest. If we lose this, we begin to lose true democracy. I don't know how to monetize news information. I don't know how to encourage the average reader to care, just a little, about important events beyond Hollywood and style. But I do know that if we lose it because we think it's free...we are definitely going to pay for it.