Huge surprise: people don't want to pay for newspapers when they used to be free.

[StageLeft]

http://www.observer.com/2010/media/after-three-months-only-35-subscriptions-newsdays-web-site

In late October, Newsday, the Long Island daily that the Dolans bought for $650 million, put its web site, newsday.com, behind a pay wall. The paper was one of the first non-business newspapers to take the plunge by putting up a pay wall, so in media circles it has been followed with interest...So, three months later, how many people have signed up to pay $5 a week, or $260 a year, to get unfettered access to newsday.com?

The answer: 35 people.

Quite funny. I find it amusing how I've read articles here and there in the past year that free news online is going away and we'll have to start paying. Given the absurd competition out there even with most of the main news sites entirely free (I can think of a few you have to sign up for and I think Time gives premier content to actual subscribers) it seemed ridiculous. Well, this paper is finding out the hard way.

 

[spidey07]

I thought NYTimes started this as well? I had the WSJ app on my phone but as soon as they wanted me to pay = delete.

I do pay for weekend delivery of my local paper because I like reading it/thumbing on the weekends.

 

[JS80]

What's a newspaper?

 

[spidey07]

What's a newspaper?

It's what you start your charcoal grill with and fires.

 

[Rockinacoustic]

I'm surprised 35 people pay for that crap. It's probably Dolan and his extended family.

 

[JS80]

It's what you start your charcoal grill with and fires.

knock knock

 

[cubby1223]

Well here's the kicker, the choice for journalism is to either attempt to make money off of internet subscriptions, or start transitioning into a different career.

They all are quickly approaching a no-win situation as it is.

 

[spidey07]

Well here's the kicker, the choice for journalism is to either attempt to make money off of internet subscriptions, or start transitioning into a different career.

They all are quickly approaching a no-win situation as it is.

So why don't they focus to more advertising revenue like other web content providers?

 

[Craig234]

There was an interview with two people on this - Bill Moyers IIRC - who made some very good points that lead to a controversial recommendation.

The background is important - the role of investigative journalism as monitor of the powers that be public and private and informers of the citizens as crucial to democracy.

They pointed out how most of the media we consume from tv to talk radio to web sites is mostly based on stories by print reporters doing the actual investigating and reporting - who are shrinking to nothing.

Their point that's important is that the situation is becoming very ripe for propaganda. As those independant investigators are eliminated, the appetite for news turns to the pre-packackaged 'stories' put out as the official government quotes and stories, and the information from interested parties who pay for the content to be created for their message, e.g., press releases.

Some outlets are already overwhelmed by that type of content.

Their controversial recommendation was that there be government pay for investigate journalism that's independant.

The knee-jerk right can't wait to respond that's crazy socialism, like they do to every government idea including many they say are great later, but the idea might be good.

Sme might say the founding fathers would scream at the idea - not haveing learned their history that the government subsidized newspapers early in the country because of their important role for democracy.

The interviews explained how the model that's existed for a certain period of decades where the newspapers could pay their own costs on advertising model was temporary and now defunct.

But the need for the investigate journalism exists before and after that business model.

Their opinion of the likelihood of propaganda becoming much more prevalent in the vacuum seems right.

 

[cubby1223]

So why don't they focus to more advertising revenue like other web content providers?

Which other web content providers? The online newspapers which do not engage in any true investigative journalism? Web content providers that just repost what other people create and can only be supplementary income at best to those who create the substance?

Revenues generated by web advertising just does not materialize into significant sums to run a traditional news organization.

They will all adapt. Capitalism at work. They will slash their staffs, and take on less risky endeavors with their stories.


It's similar to tv networks and Hulu. Hulu will never generate the ad revenue needed to produce all the content that is offered. As broadcast/cable/satellite services start to go away in the coming years, producers will be in the same situation journalists face today - figure out how to get paying internet subscribers, or reduce your output significantly.

 

[StageLeft]

There was an interview with two people on this - Bill Moyers IIRC - who made some very good points that lead to a controversial recommendation.

The background is important - the role of investigative journalism as monitor of the powers that be public and private and informers of the citizens as crucial to democracy.

They pointed out how most of the media we consume from tv to talk radio to web sites is mostly based on stories by print reporters doing the actual investigating and reporting - who are shrinking to nothing.

Their point that's important is that the situation is becoming very ripe for propaganda. As those independant investigators are eliminated, the appetite for news turns to the pre-packackaged 'stories' put out as the official government quotes and stories, and the information from interested parties who pay for the content to be created for their message, e.g., press releases.

Some outlets are already overwhelmed by that type of content.

Their controversial recommendation was that there be government pay for investigate journalism that's independant.

The knee-jerk right can't wait to respond that's crazy socialism, like they do to every government idea including many they say are great later, but the idea might be good.

Sme might say the founding fathers would scream at the idea - not haveing learned their history that the government subsidized newspapers early in the country because of their important role for democracy.

The interviews explained how the model that's existed for a certain period of decades where the newspapers could pay their own costs on advertising model was temporary and now defunct.

But the need for the investigate journalism exists before and after that business model.

Their opinion of the likelihood of propaganda becoming much more prevalent in the vacuum seems right.

Isn't NPR supported by the government? They are, I think, the best news org, too. I know they get donations from private people also.

You can see that the big news orgs get their stuff from a single source. Some breaking stories the fox, cnn, etc. are all basically the same thing.

 

[kranky]

I have no doubt that as newspapers wane, a number of things will inevitably happen.

Corruption in politics will increase dramatically, especially at the local/state level. There will be nobody looking over their shoulder.

People will become more polarized in their positions on issues. People won't read a "wall of text" in order to learn the nuances of multiple sides of an issue.

Disinformation (or propaganda, as mentioned above), will proliferate. Again, no checks and balances. If a site puts out a story that's full of BS, what remedy is there? All that can be done is for other sites to try to point out the BS. And if the big sites gather all the viewers, good luck trying to get the other side out there.

What website is going to pay a reporter's salary for 3 months in order for the writer to dig out a story that's in the public interest?

It's sad that what people consider "getting news on the web" is really nothing more than the equivalent of reading headlines but not the story. Whether government subsidy is the answer, I don't know. I do know that it is very ominous for democracy and for the public that newspapers are fading from importance.

 

[cubby1223]

Isn't NPR supported by the government? They are, I think, the best news org, too. I know they get donations from private people also.

But how much investigative journalism do they do against government corruption?

 

[Craig234]

But how much investigative journalism do they do against government corruption?

Just like the arguably greatest news organization in the world, the BBC, that has far more funding from the government than PBS/NPR (10-20%?), government funding need not necessarily mean that they are soft on the government. It depends how it's set up and the culture of the government and the people in the public and organization.

Indeed, it was our supposedly independant but corporate-dominated news organizatins who are the worst it seems about defendig the government line when it suits their needs - and they have an inherent bias against controversy, because any story about government wrongdoing tends to alienate a segment of viewers that hurts their ratings, while stories about things like missing cute girls are not controversial, which is a big reason they get so much coverage.

This is part of why Watergate got very little coverage early on and the Washington Post was an exception in allowing two reporters to research, and even then it was covered lighly ans might not have gone anywhere if not for things like the smoking gun tapes accidentally being exposed.

 

[woolfe9999]

http://www.observer.com/2010/media/after-three-months-only-35-subscriptions-newsdays-web-site



Quite funny. I find it amusing how I've read articles here and there in the past year that free news online is going away and we'll have to start paying. Given the absurd competition out there even with most of the main news sites entirely free (I can think of a few you have to sign up for and I think Time gives premier content to actual subscribers) it seemed ridiculous. Well, this paper is finding out the hard way.

This will not work until ALL the online news sources go behind pay walls. Consumers will then not have a choice.

- wolf

 

[Vic]

It's what you start your charcoal grill with and fires.

Paraffin fire starters are much more effective.

 

[Jaskalas]

Just like the arguably greatest news organization in the world, the BBC, that has far more funding from the government than PBS/NPR (10-20%?), government funding need not necessarily mean that they are soft on the government. It depends how it's set up and the culture of the government and the people in the public and organization.

Reminds me of the argument in favor of Kings. Kings aren't bad, you just need a good one. Thankfully newspapers DO answer to the people through funding. It does not surprise me that you wish to take this accountability away from them.

 

[DanDaManJC]

yeah it seems like it's a tough bind, journalists have to make a living too, so what are they to do?

maybe form some kind of combo with google? they have the search index for the internet and the ad revenue which papers traditionally relied on

 

[Craig234]

Reminds me of the argument in favor of Kings. Kings aren't bad, you just need a good one. Thankfully newspapers DO answer to the people through funding. It does not surprise me that you wish to take this accountability away from them.

Except they don't, really. Oh, they have to keep readers reading, but they doin't really answer to them - they answer to the people who really pay the bills, the advertisers, just like TV News.

This isn't like Kings. That's simplistic and a false analogy.

You don't understand the difference between the problem with kings and the setup of how to create indepdnance in government-funded entities.

I note you fail toi say a word, for, example, why the hexample I gave of the BBC is wrong.

 

[cubby1223]

This will not work until ALL the online news sources go behind pay walls. Consumers will then not have a choice.

Neither will this even work - as the RIAA has shown us, the distribution of digital information cannot be protected.

 

[cubby1223]

Reminds me of the argument in favor of Kings. Kings aren't bad, you just need a good one. Thankfully newspapers DO answer to the people through funding. It does not surprise me that you wish to take this accountability away from them.

Are you *really* this dumb? Go read again what the topic of this thread is, and what it means.

 

[palehorse]

There was an interview with two people on this - Bill Moyers IIRC - who made some very good points that lead to a controversial recommendation.

The background is important - the role of investigative journalism as monitor of the powers that be public and private and informers of the citizens as crucial to democracy.

They pointed out how most of the media we consume from tv to talk radio to web sites is mostly based on stories by print reporters doing the actual investigating and reporting - who are shrinking to nothing.

Their point that's important is that the situation is becoming very ripe for propaganda. As those independant investigators are eliminated, the appetite for news turns to the pre-packackaged 'stories' put out as the official government quotes and stories, and the information from interested parties who pay for the content to be created for their message, e.g., press releases.

Some outlets are already overwhelmed by that type of content.

Their controversial recommendation was that there be government pay for investigate journalism that's independant.

The knee-jerk right can't wait to respond that's crazy socialism, like they do to every government idea including many they say are great later, but the idea might be good.

Sme might say the founding fathers would scream at the idea - not haveing learned their history that the government subsidized newspapers early in the country because of their important role for democracy.

The interviews explained how the model that's existed for a certain period of decades where the newspapers could pay their own costs on advertising model was temporary and now defunct.

But the need for the investigate journalism exists before and after that business model.

Their opinion of the likelihood of propaganda becoming much more prevalent in the vacuum seems right.

umm, no. On a very long list of shitty ideas, that is among the worst. Government pay for all "investigative journalists"?

Not in my fucking country.

My knee may be jerking, but it's doing so because I really want to knee the guy who came up with that right in his vagina.

Venezuela FTL.

 

[Craig234]

umm, no. On a very long list of shitty ideas, that is amongst the worst. Government pay for "journalists"?

Not in my fucking country.

My knee may be jerking, but it's doing so because I really want to knee the guy who came up with that right in his vagina.

Yes, having almost no investigative journalism among a propaganda-smother citizenry is the solution.

 

[Jaskalas]

Oh, so unless we argue that the BBC is bad then we should be in favor of government funded media? I used the example of Kings because there were some good examples out there that probably did a better job than a Democratic Republic. Doesn’t mean we should all go jumping towards Monarchy.

While writing my reply I did fail to think of the advertisers as the subject seems to revolve around subscription fees. In fact don’t all newspapers require one? So while there is an additional factor, if the paper does not attract subscribers then they’re toast. Not true under your government funded paper, they could have no one reading and the bills would still be paid.

I detest the notion that tax payers should fund failures like Newsday. You may cite the BBC but I assure you not every media outlet is the BBC. My problem with the notion is simple, where is the accountability? If people don’t want to pay for it then it’s not paid for. How would tax payers have that sort of control? They wouldn’t.

 

[palehorse]

Yes, having almost no investigative journalism among a propaganda-smother citizenry is the solution.

There should never, EVER, be a tie between government funding and all investigative journalists, period. The potential for abuse is just plain frightening. It's not even a question of whether or not it would happen, but only a matter of how often and to what extent.

No bid contracts? HA! That's child's play compared to "investigative journalists" that can be bought/sold like stock by the politicians.

Not just no, but HELL no.

The very idea flies in the face of everything this country stands for.

That said, I'd gladly plop down 0.25 for a virtual copy of the NYT on those days I feel like reading a virtual paper front-to-back. But, you'll never catch me paying for AP stories (RSS), or anything else that comes over the wire for free already... not a chance.