????上世紀(jì)90年代中期，原《時(shí)代》雜志（Time Magazine）編輯沃爾特?艾薩克森犯下了他所謂的“原罪”。當(dāng)時(shí)，互聯(lián)網(wǎng)剛剛興起，艾薩克森計(jì)劃向讀者收取一小筆費(fèi)用，為讀者在線提供雜志的內(nèi)容?，F(xiàn)任阿斯彭研究所（Aspen Institute）CEO的艾薩克森道：“相反，來(lái)自麥迪遜大道的年輕廣告經(jīng)理們紛紛涌入第五大道的時(shí)代生活大樓，把一袋一袋的現(xiàn)金擺在我們桌上，要求在我們發(fā)布的任何在線內(nèi)容中投放標(biāo)題廣告。我們說(shuō)：‘這也太容易了。我們以后永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)對(duì)內(nèi)容進(jìn)行收費(fèi)，因?yàn)槲覀冃枰W(wǎng)站訪問(wèn)量?！?/p>

????“而這卻為新聞業(yè)的結(jié)局埋下了禍根?！?/p>

????要想了解之后新聞行業(yè)的發(fā)展歷程并不容易。不過(guò)許多人都在不斷嘗試。退休不久的時(shí)代公司（Time Inc.）總編約翰?休伊、《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》（New York Times）特別顧問(wèn)馬丁?尼森霍爾茨和時(shí)代公司前新媒體編輯保羅?薩根，最近完成了一個(gè)煞費(fèi)苦心的項(xiàng)目。項(xiàng)目收集了60 – 70份視頻采訪，記錄了數(shù)字媒體推出之后，新聞行業(yè)所發(fā)生的變化。這個(gè)名為“激流”（Riptide）的項(xiàng)目定于九月份推出。在最新一期的《財(cái)富》雜志上可以查看項(xiàng)目簡(jiǎn)介。

????周三的財(cái)富科技頭腦風(fēng)暴大會(huì)上，這三位與艾薩克森共同討論了新聞行業(yè)的歷史與未來(lái)。以下是各位專(zhuān)家的精彩發(fā)言。

????關(guān)于上世紀(jì)90年代中期免費(fèi)提供在線內(nèi)容的決定：

????薩根：“如果當(dāng)時(shí)樹(shù)立一個(gè)今天所謂的‘付費(fèi)墻’，可能會(huì)讓你跟不上時(shí)代潮流。而且，那根本行不通……當(dāng)時(shí)，頁(yè)面訪問(wèn)量就代表著金錢(qián)?！?/p>

????尼森霍爾茨：“對(duì)于新聞業(yè)來(lái)說(shuō)，這個(gè)決定維持了它的發(fā)展。新聞得以在史無(wú)前例的范圍內(nèi)傳播。而對(duì)于廣告業(yè)，它卻極具破壞性。新聞業(yè)日漸壯大的同時(shí)，廣告行業(yè)收入?yún)s被不斷蒸發(fā)。”

????關(guān)于按篇章付費(fèi)的商業(yè)模式是否可行：

????休伊：“我認(rèn)為不可行，因?yàn)樽詮纳鲜兰o(jì)90年代開(kāi)始，免費(fèi)內(nèi)容到處都是。有太多地方可以獲得免費(fèi)內(nèi)容。我花錢(qián)訂閱了《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》（New York Times），我知道你（艾薩克森）也訂閱了，可我不知道我的孩子們是否會(huì)愿意花錢(qián)訂閱?！?/p>

????薩根：“龐大的讀者群體中只有一小部分會(huì)為內(nèi)容支付，高質(zhì)量的內(nèi)容有機(jī)會(huì)獲得廣告收入和訂閱收入。但我不知道每一次都要讀者支付五美分的做法是否可行?！?/p>

????In the mid-1990s, former Time Magazine editor Walter Isaacson committed what he now calls "the original sin." As the World Wide Web started to take off, Isaacson contemplated charging a small fee for readers to enjoy his publication's content online. "Instead, young advertising executives from Madison Avenue came rushing across Fifth Avenue to the Time and Life Building with bags of money to dump on our desks to put banner ads on whatever we were putting online," says Isaacson, now the CEO of the Aspen Institute. "We said 'whoa, this is easy. We will never charge for content because we want eyeballs.'"

????"And that was the beginning of the end of journalism."

????Understanding the path the journalism industry has taken since is not exactly simple. But some are trying. John Huey, recently retired editor-in-chief of Time Inc. (TWX), Martin Nisenholtz, a special advisor to the New York Times, and Paul Sagan, former editor of new media at Time Inc. recently completed an elaborate project -- a collection of 60-70 video?interviews documenting how the journalism industry changed following the introduction of digital media. The project, called "Riptide," is set to debut in September. A preview can be found in the most recent issue ofFortune.

????The trio joined Isaacson onstage during the last day of Fortune's Brainstorm Tech conference Wednesday to discuss journalism's history and future. Here are some of the panel's most intriguing sound bites.

????On the decision to offer content online for free in the mid 90s:

????Sagan: "You would have made yourself irrelevant by creating what today you would call a paywall. It would have been impossible… Page views were the currency of the time."

????Nisenholtz: "For the journalism, it was sustaining. The journalism is spread far and wide now [more than ever before]. For the advertising, it was disruptive. And so the oxygen got taken out of the financial model at the same time that the journalism was bigger then ever."

????On whether a pay-per-story business model would work:

????Huey: "I don't think so because there's too much free content out there and has been since the [90s]. There are too many places to get content for free. I pay for the New York Times, I know you (Isaacson) pay for the New York Times, but I'm not sure my kids would."

????Sagan: "A small percentage of a big number will pay for these things and there's [an opportunity] to get ad revenue and subscription revenue for quality content. But I'm not sure asking people to pay a nickel every time is going to add up enough."