The internet: a progressive revolution in global journalistic culture

All good, but who will pay for the maintenance of that key element of professionalism? Rusbridger noted in his Sydney speech that nearly all journalism has until now been subsidised, if not by the party, the taxpayer or the wealthy proprietor then by advertising. More simply, all journalism has had to be paid for, by someone, in some form.

That remains true and, as I have written before in this space, the challenge for news organisations is, in a world where so much journalism of quality is available for free, to persuade us to pay for their branded products directly, through subscription to iPad apps and the like. Or, like the Guardian, to command sufficient user loyalty in an evermore crowded media environment to be able to attract enough advertising revenue to keep running.

Both approaches - subscription and advertising - are now locked in battle, in media marts all over the world. In Scotland, Johnston has its pay wall, while the Herald is still free. In Australia, News Ltd titles are going behind the wall, while Fairfax remains accessible to all. I am doing my bit as a subscriber and tax payer. I like to get free stuff, like anybody else, but I’m also prepared to pay if need be.

The reassuring thing for me, as a consumer of journalism, and a believer in its fundamental importance to our lives and societies, is this - there has never been so much competition for the reader’s attention, never so much choice. Whichever business model prevails in the battle now underway for the future of journalism - and more than one may be sustainable - the consumer is in control. We, the users of the internet, with our access to this truly amazing tool, have the power to determine what will succeed and what will fail in the news marketplace.

That sets the bar high for all the would-be producers, and provides us with the best guarantee we have on the long term sustainability of a journalism we can call “quality”.