I agree with James Murdoch to an extent, as it wouldn't be fair if BBC is allowed to provide free news online, and other companies such as The SUN you would have to pay, also the news is not always accurate therefore, the news BBC wish to put up should be examined beforehand, and it should be shown how correct it is. Furthermore, if BBC provides news for free, it would be incredibly difficult for private news organisations to ask people to pay for their news, as they would be receiving it for free anyway's therefore they wouldn't want to pay. However, other companies such as Daily mail also provide news for free which people are able to read.
However, BBC is a licensed funded company therefore it should be free, as most information provided by BBC is accurate, and people may not have the facilities to get news, they may be from a low income background, therefore it would benefit them to get news for free. Also, they may not have T.V's to watch news on or any other sources. Also, news can be edited like information on Wikipedia. Also, people are able to place on their own news on the guardian so it can be made up, BBC wouldn't make up false news, as they're not allowed too.
2) Was Rupert Murdoch right to put his news content (The Times, The Sun) behind a paywall?
Rupert Murdoch was right to put his new content behind a paywall, as he had a USP of the up to date seconds of goals, there are many factors which increase the reasoning behind him being right to have a paywall. He had 140,000 paying digital subscribers who were willing to pay for this service. This meant any loss in profits that NewCorp may have made would have been made up, which meant there wouldn't have been a decline in newspapers. This would allow readers to pick what sources they would prefer to receive news through. Readers have a choice of either paying for news or receiving it for free, through many different websites.