Many people probably think that the vast array of resources on the internet means that aggregation is not a problem, and maybe it isn’t – yet. But it’s hardly planning for the future. Maybe it won’t happen in our lifetime, but there is another issue to consider here.

If writers cannot afford to devote their day to investigation, what does that mean for democracy? When a local newspaper closes, people bemoan an inability to call local politicians and authorities to account any more. But writers have to eat, too. It seems incredible that we are all so hung up about fair trade, about caring for our food producers, yet what is being suggested here is that those people who supply you with the material you use for comment should do it out of the goodness of their hearts.

This is not some kind of Robin Hood thing. Start looking past the greedy media organisations and think about the people they employ. It is my belief many of these news organisations will fall in time. Will you really expect news for free from local news co-operatives? Nobody can say for certain that advertising is the way forward – it’s proved to be as volatile as commodities in the past two years.

In fact, nobody knows how the media will look in five years’ time. Other revenue streams will come forward. And that isn’t a concern of aggregators, bloggers and others who can’t be bothered to generate their own original content, and would rather piggy-back off other people’s work. But we are already in a situation where writers can no longer be afforded, or won’t be afforded. It could become your problem sooner than you think.

Murdoch will make money where he always has, on streamed live sports but forcing one to read an article by subscription, most will just opt to find the news elsewhere and the blogosphere is not going anywhere.

That it has not as yet happened in Murdochville is an indication that they are running into difficulty figuring out how to make it work.

What the media can or cannot afford is no concern of mine.

As for “sticking your head in the sand”, that’s a false assumption. It’s simply not my problem.

By Google offering free content, it doesn’t make it right. Sticking your head in the sand won’t make it go away – no matter how little you may like NewsCorp.

Also, the founder of Twitter has spoken out telling Murdoch that his plan will not work as the future of the internet “is open, not closed”.

This topic is heating up pretty quickly and whatever happens, it could shape the way the internet works.

It argues that it is delivering readers, but it isn’t, really. If those readers were asked to pay for this content, as they are at the newsstand, Google’s work would mean nothing to these organisations, yet they are the one providing the content to Google’s advertising. it does not follow that widened brand recognition brings financial benefits. I regularly read the New Zealand Herald online yet I have never given a penny to it. What Google is doing is rather like having a newspaper where all the journalists – who bring in the readers, lest we forget – work for free while the corporate end of the business reaps all the benefits (not that far from the truth, I suppose, but a little more extreme).

If Murdoch loses this one, it could potentially give a huge bite of online news to Google, perhaps monopolising other smaller but better organisations out of existence. While I have plenty of issues with Murdoch’s business practices – not least his ability to avoid corporate tax – his battle could be journalism’s battle. One to watch.