Already the amount of news available online is staggering and I'm not just talking about content from wire services such as the and , which are, at least for the moment, free.

Next down the rung is a huge amount of top quality content, all of it for free, from the likes of the BBC (which takes a rather more global view than most news organizations, , for instance, that "Prisoners in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh are being freed early if they complete yoga courses" … who knew?).

Closer to home and at the other end of the publishing spectrum, there are thousands of local papers and other periodicals that provide regional news. Add to that the millions of bloggers and bajillions of citizens who blog, tweet and post on their Facebook walls, and it is obvious that across the entire range of geographic scope there's no shortage of news to be had.

It is the sheer scope and volume that has changed the game for the news media. The New York Times is simply no longer unique. Its online market can be inexpensively addressed by its major competitors and trying to create a walled garden limited to those who want to pay for what they can get elsewhere for free will be an exercise in futility.

The problem for the Times is very similar to the one that the music industry has been wrestling with: Its product has morphed from being highly differentiated to being a commodity.