I'm not going to be in town too much longer but I still get the local newspaper. Today, on the front page no less, the local paper alleges a political cover-up at City Hall.

I don't know whether there is anything to their story but I do know that the local paper is not interested in sharing it with the world at large. That's because they have read the tea leaves and believe in walls going up around their data.

Many newspapers are doing it. Threatened by new distribution methods and alternate news sources they have decided that it is better to be off-line and invisible to search engines than front and center in the changing media space. Freedom of information is something they deserve; not something they practice. I know they run a business and I know they have a payroll. Their business is threatened by new actors and they have chosen to ignore the threat.

I would love to show you the main page on their web site but I'm not going to link to it. The page is covered -- literally crawling -- with advertising. You have to look hard for links to news. When you do find a link it's obfuscated by the inevitable "for subscribers only" sign-in page.

If I was an advertiser I would ask why they didn't boost CPM by opening their news pages. I would ask why the "pass on" factor (the number of people who read a newspaper greatly out-number the number of actual copies sold) does not work for the web. I would wonder why they are limiting ad and news copy only to people who already know that the copy exists on their web site (ie: search cannot look up anything on this site). With that in mind I might look for a portal or perhaps a TV or radio station's web site to advertise on, provided they could answer those questions.

When any media outlet tries to wall itself behind hide-bound concepts of information delivery that worked in the 1950's it's time to cut the ties. It's even more inconceivable to me that they would intentionally limit viewing of news that could be supported by advertising on-line.