(UPDATED Nov. 15, approx. 9 a.m.: See end of post for a snippet of Jeff Jarvis’ take on Scheer’s idea and my $0.02.)

Peter Scheer had a thought-provoking and worth-considering article in the “San Francisco Chronicle” Sunday. You can also view it at the California First Amendment Coalition, where he is executive director. (Story courtesy of Poynter’s Romenesko.)

His idea is:

Newspapers and wire services need to figure out a way, without running afoul of antitrust laws, to agree to embargo their news content from the free Internet for a brief period — say, 24 hours — after it is made available to paying customers. The point is not to remove content from the Internet, but to delay its free release in that venue.

Scheer makes a great point about the main advantage — information — that newspapers have. And, the problem they also face when it comes to news on the national and larger realms:

Despite this advantage for newspapers, individual papers generally cannot charge for their content online because similar content is available elsewhere on the Internet for free.

My thoughts? No, newspapers should not embargo their feeds to Internet resources. They should embrace the Internet — and take advantage of it, as I’ve said before.

Newspapers should focus on local and regional news. NEWS PEOPLE CANNOT GET ELSEWHERE! Yes, even from blogs. No media outlet gives as much in-depth coverage as newspapers. Not radio. Not TV. And, with the Internet, newspapers can compete with the real-time advantages of radio and TV. USE IT!

I will repeat and yell that from the highest mountain tops until the end of time. Or, until the bulk of newspapers get it.

Also, increase online advertising revenue rates. Geez oh petes! Newspaper sites are the most heavily-trafficked sites. Use that advantage.

And, don’t be afraid to charge for some of your more highly-coveted online content. Be like the “NYTs” with its TimesSelect. (Though, now the Times is offering free temporary access.)

Or, allow for only basic viewing of news, but charge for features or in-depth stuff. Strike a balance between generating ad revenue for heavy traffic pages of your site, and charging for access. (With giving print subscribers either a reduced rate for online content or not charging them at all.)

Newspapers shouldn’t fight the Internet and its real-time capabilities. Use the professional news-gathering force you have in place and take advantage of the Internet!

UPDATED: BuzzMachine’s Jeff Jarvis also commented about Scheer’s idea, and he agrees with me that it’s not a good idea. (Okay, Jarvis did make his post first, but I didn’t see it before I posted mine. Honest.)

Part of his response is:

Uh, counselor, you assume that you can still control the news. You can’t. That’s the whole point of the internet. Others can easily step into whatever void there is and report what you don’t report;

Newspapers and other media never assumed they controlled the news. That’s wrong to think that. While the media may make the news, they predominantly report it.

And, unlike what Jarvis and others seem to think, no one individual or entity can do a better job of reporting the news than newspapers. No one or entity has the news-gathering resources and relationships to report the news any better than newspapers.

Yes, as I’ve said, there are other sources for national and global news, but nothing that currently exists now can “scoop” the papers as the best information-reporting source.

Now, if the newspapers can only focus on local and regional news — and embrace the ‘net — they’d be better off.

– Mike