YES - Malcolm Murdoch, digital account director, Mindshare
Looking at newspapers' current print-focused businesses, it's almost enough to cheer bankers up.
Their traditional market is drying up, attacked from the internet, the BBC, TV and freesheets. The inescapable problem is that papers make as much from the cover price than from advertising. But there's simply not enough money to support the number of online news sites.
Fantasy football or crosswords do not provide sufficient money either. Charging will come about or the number of news sources will have to reduce significantly. Charging users will be painful and needs a good micro-payment system, which doesn't yet exist.
If an easy way of paying a couple of pence per article can be implemented, then charging will happen successfully. Subscription will be a struggle, but giving users options is always the sensible way to run.
NO - Neil Eatson, head of search, AKQA
Most newspapers offer a great depth of content online and various add-itions to the user's daily digestion of the paper version.
They have built up their online numbers by the simple business model of more content, more users, makes more revenue in ads. But if they start charging, you would see users dry up dramatically - they will, by human nature, go elsewhere.
Online users have been receiving content for free for years and, for the reader to even consider paying, each publisher would have to offer so much more than there is available now. But more content is more expense for publishers.
Simple maths dictates that charging just cannot work. No one pays to subscribe; lower user numbers: no ad revenue.
Murdoch may point to the iTunes model of people still paying for music - but music or a headline, which one do you want to keep longer?
NO - Jason Carter, managing partner, digital, UM
We've been here before and, in all but a handful of cases, people won't cough-up for online news.
We'll pay Murdoch through the nose for live Premier League football because we have to. However, we've never really paid for online news and with so many places to get it free, we won't. It's all too evident why Murdoch would like us to pay.
His industry is having a torrid time - circulations are down; delivering the news is ever more costly; the industry has invested in new platforms and technologies, and shortfalls in traditional revenues are not being filled by digital.
Unfortunately, some newspapers will go out of business before we pay for online content.
NO - Kevin Murphy, managing director, Zed Media
There is such an abundance of free news content out there, one would have to be a staunch (or wealthy) reader to pay for online access as well as a hard copy, which the most brand-loyal readers will already be doing.
Also, it would take a universally united switch by all the newspapers to make a move to subscription work, which is unlikely to be the case.
So, high-quality free content will remain available and this will decrease subscription revenue potential. That said, the non-UK audience makes up a huge part of the newspaper's online unique users.
These could provide potential segments for subscription, so the model could be tested based on geographical location.
Murdoch is right about the rise in cheap display inventory, but news-papers have established brand names and provide quality content across multiple on and offline platforms.