Section 2: The second section is about how he thinks that the media giants need to step in to change the whole set up, where professional news inst reported by citizen journalist and by qualified journalists.
Section 3: The third section is about how they ignored the development of new media and it was only recognised when the damage was done.
Section 4: This section he talks about 3 different things, the first is the pay wall and how audience will pay for the quality news, then he talks about the local newspapers and if they provided quality news then people will be willing to pay for quality journalism.
My opinion is quite similar to the writer as I have always said people are in a habit to get free quality news as they never noticed the problem when it actually started so people aren't willing to pay for news monthly as its free online and this wasn't diagnosed when first happened. I believe if every industry introduced pay walls then people will be willing to pay for the news and this way more journalist will be employed which will lead to more quality news.
"You must both also individually inform the wire-service consortiums that unless they limit membership to publications, online or off, that provide content only through paid subscriptions, you intend to withdraw immediately from those consortiums."
So wire services would no longer be allowed to provide content to TV and radio stations?
#1 Posted by Max Brantley on Thu 16 Jul 2009 at 10:30 AM
will never pay for “news” again. Most news is not truly news - it is sensationalism, hype and deception. Most news is not balanced - every editor is biased. And it is not just that - I truly can not afford to pay for news. Academics, especially with tenure, got it made in the shade and may be able to afford to follow the “news” as they are funded and it does not come out of their pockets. The question comes down to this - do we want an informed public or not. The answer, at least right now, is no. If the public were truly properly informed the American people would not allow Wall Street to gut Main Street, would not believe the lies of “the terrorists are going to destroy our way of life” and would understand that it really makes no difference - except in perception - of who holds the title of chief cheerleader - oops I mean Commander in Chief, President, which should be renamed CEO of America Incorporated.
#9 Posted by Lawrence Turner on Fri 17 Jul 2009 at 11:55 AM
If news were not free, there would be enough people willing to pay for it to cover the cost of producing it. But suppose the New York Times suddenly started charging for online access; althought it is a great newspaper, I probably wouldn't pay for it. There are just too many free alternatives that are almost as good. Even if (for example) no other online news source were as good as the Times, the remaining news sources will collectively fill the gap.
The economic parlance, you have goods which are near perfect substitutes. If I can't read Paul Krugman's column, I can go read some other noble prize winning economist's latest available(and accessible) column. Likewise, if I can't read Thomas Freidman, I can get the same kind of hype from a used car lot advertisement.
So I think, maybe, a number of major papers would have to work in concert to significantly degrade the free online news world. In other words - again in economic parlance - they might have to collude.
The news industry needs something like OPEC.
#13 Posted by Raskalnikov on Fri 17 Jul 2009 at 10:22 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment