Newspaperman Kevin Sack of The New York Times was in town today to give a speech at the Clinton School of Public Service.  Mr. Sack, the two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, spoke about the future of the newspaper business in the age of the Internet.  His comments were thoughful and funny.  Mr. Sack argued that the Internet, and more specifically, free content, has had a drastic and negative impact on the traditional newspaper.  Simply, fewer people are subscribing to the print edition of the paper.  It’s killing advertising revenues and, as a result, newspapers are closing bureaus and laying off staff.  The loss of staff in the industry as a whole creates a genuine problem, he continues.  With less reporters, there are less people to cover government, foreign affairs, politicians and public interest matters and military matters, like the flawed military aircraft nicknamed “The Widow Maker” for which Mr. Sack won his second Pulitzer.

Mr. Sack has a point, and he offered a wealth of statistics to support his contention.  At a time when we’re facing serious issues at home and abroad, a fair, balanced and well staffed media is vital.

Related to this problem is the evolution of free content.  Years ago, Yahoo!, Google and MSN struck deals to gain access to content from the Associated Press and others for well below the market price.  In turn, it gave people all over the world free access to information that they might otherwise have had to pay for.  It hurt newspapers wanting to charge for content.  Arkansas Democrat Gazette editor Walter Hussman was on hand and he too made this point.

But the issue is where do we go from here?  If newspapers are experiencing dramatic losses in revenue, and they’re forced into massive lay-offs, what does that mean for the news business?

For the record, I pay for my Democrat-Gazette daily subscription, my Sunday New York Times subscription, my Wall Street Journal online subscription, New York Magazine, The New Yorker and The New York Review of Books subscriptions as well.  I’m glad to do it, and it really doesn’t bother me that I can read the entire Times online as well as parts of each of these other publications for free.   I also gladly read The LA Times and The Washington Post each morning.  I don’t feel bad about it either.  Should I?

It’s clear that a conflict exists between our thirst for instant information and our desire to pay for it.  Take, for example, this venture by The New York Times to take some of its popular opinion commentary (like Maureen Dowd) and add a charge for it (known as Times Select).  What happened?  People quit reading Maureen Dowd.  Maureen Dowd!  As a result, The Times scrapped it.

We should all find that interesting.  Why?  Because I think it raises an interesting question about brand loyalty.  When people become accustomed to something and it suddenly changes, their attitudes change.  We deal with this constantly in the advertising business.

I’m not suggesting it’s fair - - it’s not.  But it can’t be undone, not when you’re a primary source of information like The New York Times.  People get used to being able to read who and what they like for no cost.  Certainly The Times could slap a price on its entire website.  With as much viewership as it has, it might work.  People might pay.  Take me, for example.  I think what A.O. Scott, Manohla Dargis, Michiko Kukitani and Adam Nagourney write is worth reading no matter what.  Maybe other people would see that.

Or maybe they’d go to The Washington Post, which doesn’t charge, and fall in love with E.J. Dionne, Ann Hornaday and Chris Cillizza.  Loyalty is the issue, and I’m not sure how to solve it.  I suspect this is a conversation we’ll be having for year’s to come, preferably in articles written by Mr. Sack and others in their respective newspapers.

Related to this issue, he also suggests that blogs have, in some way, damaged the integrity of the news business.  He told a story about a conversation he had with one of the Times’ bloggers who commented, “I didn’t know I’d have to actually do real reporting.”

I think we should be careful about the line between reporting, educated opinion and sheer buffoonery.  Reporting may make that particular blogger’s job hard because the mission of his blog is to “report the news.”  Fine.  But for blogs like mine that rarely “scoop,” I’m not sure that traditional reporting is relevant.

What I mean is, much of my content is observed and educated opinion.  I read what’s out there, generally written by people a lot smarter, and I formulate opionions based on it.  I direct readers back to the original source(s) so that, irrespective of whether they agree or disagree with me, they can read it for themselves.  In my mind, I’m adding to the discussion about the 2008 presidential race, climate change, poverty, gay marriage, healthcare, baseball, books, or whatever it may be.

Maybe that’s a bad thing.  I can’t surmise if Mr. Sack believes it is.  I gave him the link to this blog, so maybe he’ll post a comment or send me an e-mail.  Anyway, I think it’s an interesting discussion that I hope we can continue.