The guy is definitely smart, but I think his hubris here is almost embarrassing. Don't want to wish bad on anyone, and I hope he gets what he wants, but I suspect he's not "getting it" here.
What's he not getting? The current method of news distribution, where papers put their content up for free on the web and continue to take punishing losses isn't sustainable. From what I understand, online advertising alone simply won't cover the cost of running a newsroom - some sort of pay model is inevitable.
Not everyone wants to pay today. The people who do pay have access to much more content, by subscription, than the people who only read what is free. That's a distinction that could survive for a long time--paying customers having access to content from charging providers, and everyone having access to content from free providers.
> The people who do pay have access to much more content, by subscription, than the people who only read what is free.
The amount of free content not behind a NewsCorp paywall far far exceeds the amount that is. This will hold true after every NewsCorp property is subscription only.
