The Murdochian controversy rages on: To pay or not to pay!

After his paywall scheme underwent an over-the-weekend e-section on the virtual world, with most sites rubbishing the move to charge the online readers and terming it as a "temporary blip", the Times, however, came out with all guns blazing on Tuesday in defense of media magnate Rupert Murdoch's announcement to make its online paper chargeable.

At a time when most media outlets have suffered heavily from the drop in advertising revenue owing to the global meltdown, Murdoch's plan for an economic turnaround to boost the flagging sales by making people visiting his news websites pay, is suicidal, most detractors opined. The Times and the Sunday Times are the first UK papers to fully charge for digital content. In a statement the News International chief too implied that its other titles, the Sun and the News of the World, would follow the pay plan.

Last week, Murdoch upped the ante over free online news content and introduced the Times paywall, to be implemented by June. He also announced plans to charge £1 a day and £2 a week for people to read the Times and Sunday Times websites ” a move that seems to have hit a virtual roadblock. This was also the initiation of a virtual debate that raged on the merits of Murdoch's excursion into paid content.

In its attempts to salvage its position and stick to its guns, the Times stated that if the newspaper demands honesty from the politicians, then it too should "practise what it preaches". Stating that this is more paramount for journalism on the internet, the paper goes on to draw parallels between the broadsheet readers who cough up £2 to read the Sunday Times, while the netizens get it for free. "At present we are in the absurd position of charging people £2 for our newspaper while simultaneously offering the same content free online." In an emotional appeal to its readers to pay the small amount, the paper draws a dismal picture of the future of journalism standards if it fails to make people pay and that the readership should understand that "nothing of value is free". It goes on to add that earlier the concept was that internet advertising would pay for the news content, a move that recession hit hard. As such "giving away expensive journalism" for free will be "financially unsustainable" and bad for the newspaper's health.

In support of it paywall option, the Times also in the same breath pleads the netizens to consider the "enormous amount of money and effort (it takes) into producing the best journalism" for its Sunday paper, which was the basis for its popularity as well as the well-investigated stories which would require enormous amounts of money and time. Claiming that it is "perhaps the most lively and competitive press in the world, but that has been possible only because it is based on commercial success", the paper said that free content will ultimately curtail their "spending which will decline, and with it the quality of the journalism."

On the other hand, the Times which has been steadily losing its online readers for months now, has stated that it is in "midst of a publishing revolution" while also acknowledging "the risks involved (by making it chargeable) when much other good journalism is still available free online".

In the recent past giant media houses like The Times, The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph realising the importance and potential of the web tool rushed to post huge chunks of content on their respective websites with the aim to reduce the distributional limitations of their physical editions and increase readership counts. However, in face of the present controversy, if the competitors do not follow his ideas, Murdoch will have more than the £240,000 a day loss headache that he is currently nursing from reduced readership.

Again biz rivals Alexander Lebedev the new Russian owner of the Independent surprised the UK print industry by turning his other newspaper, the London Evening Standard, free almost at the same time Murdoch was waging the paywall war. People are now waiting to see if the Independent too follows the free path, which will surely put pressure on Murdoch's ambitious plans. Murdoch's move has already been written off by many as "risky" and, "suicidal".

While rival business houses is on a wait and watch policy, investors and media business analysts are watching hawk-eyed on Murdoch's next step as well as his competitors', if they follow suit.

And thus, the Times' final plea to the readers falls in place: "Ultimately we think that other newspapers will follow, and that the only free content online will be of inferior quality or supplied by the BBC."

Well, if they don't, we fear Murdoch you'll definitely go down the annals of print history as the great gambler who lost at the final table.