Amid the news industry's crisis and the attendant fingerpointing over the causes, there is seemingly endless discussion these days of the pros and cons of things like micropayments, pay walls, aggregators, Google and the like. "We're being ripped off by Google and the aggregators," say the traditionalists. "We need to find some way to make people pay for our journalism. Otherwise we can't support newsrooms full of reporters and great investigative projects." "Google is not the enemy—it's driving traffic to news," say the modernists (including me). "You can't put the genie back in the bottle and get people to pay for news. There's too much competition from free sources." But maybe we're all looking at this through the wrong end of the telescope—or rather, the microscope. Maybe there is something in the news business that people might want to pay for. It's just not what some of the pay-proponents think it is. Maybe—maybe—the thing you can charge for is the package the news comes in, not the specific news items themselves. Let me explain says Mark Pots, recovering journalist.