Ask yourself, "When was point in your life when you switched from traditional media to the Internet as the primary source of news?".  For me it shortly after I got wireless set up early last year. That's when my laptop  invaded my evenings and the couch.  But I have absolutely no regrets. I can read text about 3-4x quicker than listening to the spoken word.

For me that why a  story in the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7125666.stm) struck me so hard. The story in brief touches on two main points the rapidly growing reliance on advertising to fund much many sites and profiling the most frequent ad responder as typically lower SES and older. The second point could be debated in many ways number of clicks, value of clicks, response medium, analyzed sites, etc. It’s the first point I wanted to comment on: I've long been a fan of the BBC. Watching Doctor Who as a youth steered me into studying science and mathematics. And today the BBC news website is my preferred source of news. I believe they provide a balanced and international perspective to news. I don't pay British taxes so arguably I have been freeloading. And even though I love the BBC, if they were to start charging I would likely just starting reading the CBC.

But advertising on the BBC suits me well. Of course few solutions are ever perfect. As Mr. Thompson mentioned sites could become addicted to advertising and this could serve them poorly during difficult economic times. Also I  add that some publishers could be tempted to modify their content to attract the best paying ads or to structure their pages to increase click through. This scenario doesn't immediately come to mind in the BBC's case, but it’s a focus of work for many other publishers - especially the smaller ones. Then again had they gone the subscription route other influencers could arise e.g. the need to cater towards those people most likely to renew their subscriptions.  Again no solution is perfect, but I for one  welcome advertising as the BBC's choice.