NZ Herald to go behind a paywall

This week the National Business Review reported that the New Zealand Herald will go behind a paywall.  As most NBR articles themselves are behind a paywall, they naturally support the move.  However as a journalist, a writer and a reader of news, I'm opposed.

The Nicky Hager book, Dirty Politics details an exchange between Herald columnist Rachel Glucina and Whale Oil's Cameron Slater.  Slater asked her to fabricate some stories and publish them.

Can someone explain why people would pay for lies?  The answer to declining readership is to hire actual journalists who abide by the journalism code of ethics and standards not to make people pay for lies, which the Herald wants to do.

This would mean they hire more journalists first and demand a higher standard of reporting.  It would mean instead of churnalism we see a return to investigation and stories that really matter, not just stories designed to shock.  Good journalism takes days, weeks, months, sometimes even years.

While we are in the digital age where blogging is common, we need to distinguish between blogs and newspapers and people will never pay for the Herald's articles unless they perceive the paper/website as a reliable source and given what columnists like Rachel Glucina have been involved in, they're simply not trustworthy.

The Herald needs to rebrand themselves and distance themselves from Slater if they're to be taken seriously.  The paper needs to regain the trust of the public by completely overhauling their image, staff and practices.