Paying for the internet?

According to the New York Times, the London Times and the Sunday Times will soon be charging for their internet news site. (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/03/26/business/AP-EU-Britain-Times-Web.html?_r=1&ref=media) Now charging might be risky because advertisers are less inclined to advertise on sites that people have to pay to see. On the other hand, this would not be happening if the papers were making sufficient money from the advertisements on their sites. To many of us this sounds like an idea destine for failure. Rupert Murdoch would have to disagree with the masses. He is the owner of News Corps. witch owns many newspaper companies including these two. He also owns The Wall Street Journal. The Journal is one of the most successful pay per news sites in the entire world.
I, for one, do not think that pay for news sites will work in the long run. For sites like the Wall Street Journal, it is the best economic newspaper in America that hundreds of thousands of investors use every day. Other papers like the The London Times are easily replicable by the Daily Mail or another prominent British newspaper. With sites like google news that brings articles from all different sources to one page no one has the need to use just one news site. One way this would work is if all the major news sites began charging people for a subscription. This way people would have no choice but to buy it. For the average internet user this seems completely outrageous that they would have to pay to see a site, but we have to remember that there are journalist and editors who's job it is to report the news and post it online. So why shouldn't they be paid?
Jason