But it completely ignores one fundamental issue: good reporting costs money. Setting up a bureau in Kabul is expensive. Doing good investigative reporting is time-consuming (and hence expensive). Sure, you can hope for random strangers to send in reports and photos, but that's not going to achieve the same quality of coverage. If you want people to report on dangerous events, if you want reporters to cover the boring, complicated - but important - stuff, you'll need to pay at least some of them. Blogs are a great way to discuss the news, but they aren't a replacement for the news.
And then the article repeats this supposedly standard wisdom: "you certainly don't want to charge people for daily news content." My question is: why not? People have been paying for news for a long time. Yes, the delivery system has changed, but that doesn't necessarily imply that people won't pay for it. (Lots of people are paying for iPhone apps, for example.)
Newspapers (at least the ones with international coverage) may have backed themselves into a corner. If the New York Times starts charging for news, everyone can just switch to the Washington Post, or the BBC, or ... I have no idea if there's any way out of this corner, but I hope they find one. They do appear to be trying.
I'm not going to claim that business models won't change. Maybe newspapers will stick with the subscription model; maybe they'll come up with something completely different.
But standing around screaming "everything should be free" is pointless. Those reporters and photographers and investigative journalists all have to pay their rent somehow, or society will end up in the unfortunate position of not knowing what's going on in the world.