What will save journalism? Lately it seems easier to find ruminations (沉思) on that subject than to find journalism itself. With advertising down and the Internet making information seem free and easy, anxious journos (for whom "save journalism" equals "save my job") have suggested numerous white knights for their profession.
    The New York Times is reportedly readying plans to start charging for online access, while a group of newspaper executives has been looking into the legality of banding together to do the same. News outlets are selling software, merchandise, club memberships -- anything that people are more willing to pay for than, well, news.
   It's possible, though, that nothing will save the journalism business -- at least as we know it and pay for it today. That doesn't mean journalism will go away. Reporting won't go away, though foreign bureaus might. Information won't go away. Opinion certainly won't.
   But somebody will have to pay -- even, or especially, for the free stuff. Some journalism could become a kind of volunteer work, performed by eyewitnesses, passionate amateurs or professionals in other fields who use journalism as a loss leader to sell their books or build their brands. Even if you filter your own news from Twitter, you're paying in time and effort.
Those seeking to pay the bills through full-time journalism could find different paymasters. The Associated Press recently started taking investigative reports from four nonprofit journalism groups. And if newspapers can't afford investigations, advocacy groups and think tanks -- which already hire research pros -- could do their own: a kind of piecemeal (逐渐的) return to the old partisan press.
    Meanwhile, the advertisers who are unwilling to pay for banner ads at websites have shown interest in, as they say, more "integrated" forms of product-plugging. Some news sites sell companies "sponsored content" mentioning their products, while independent blogs collect payoffs for posts about merchandise.
    The media of the future may be a combination of all this, plus old-school outlets that survive. They could produce good journalism. But they may include funding models far different from the old church-and-state separation of content-making and money-raising.
    Journalists would be foolish, though, to think we can guilt people into buying our work in part to preserve our uniquely holy calling. As with any other service, people will buy it or they won't. Yes, news audiences will have to recognize that "free" information may mean more sponsor ships and piper payers calling the tune. But journalists will have to accept that some members of our audience are, in fact, willing to make that trade-off, just as they live with product placement in movies.
    We may not like it, but there it is. Producing something that someone is willing to pay for may make our work possible. Whereas moralizing, plus a buck or so, will buy you a cup of robust, piping hot Dunkin' Donuts coffee. That one was free, fell as.