8
Dear Rupert Murdoch,
Sir, in this post, I will be linking to a variety of source material, which I found through Google News. I'm not paying one red cent for it, and neither are my readers. That's because the content is free. If there is paid content, I will also cite it as source material, provide a link to it and from there, it's up to you. Yours truly, not a bloodsucking parasitic news tapeworm.
The subject at hand is whether readers of Google News should be able to link for free to articles that require payment. Murdoch has threatened to pull his companies' content from Google News unless Google stops the practice. This week, Google threw Murdoch a bone and amended its First Click Free program. The program allows people to access one article and after that, they're directed to a registration page. But there's a loophole, as the New York Times explains:
A well-known loophole has allowed readers to return to Google News and get access to more (Wall Street) Journal articles. In many cases, a search for the article's headline on Google News produces a link to a free version.
In a change that Google announced in a blog post Tuesday, the company will allow publishers to limit non-subscribers to five free articles a day.
Like I said, it's a bone, a small but unnecessary one. If the pay sites were truly concerned about people stealing content via Google, they'd follow through on their threats and make the content completely unavailable. There's a way to do that. But they want the traffic.
As Google announced the change yesterday, Murdoch and Arianna Huffington were doing battle at at an FTC forum on journalism. Murdoch went first:
"We believe fiercely that the key to competing during difficult times is to invest more in journalistic content, not less," Murdoch said. "Quality content is not free. In the future, good journalism will depend on the ability of a news organization to attract customers by providing news and information they are willing to pay for."
Huffington's retort:
"It amazes me that Murdoch and Brill and the paywall team at the Times continue to believe that people are prepared to pay for news online, despite the recent survey showing that 80% of US news consumers say they wouldn't bother to read news and magazines online if the content were no longer free."
Huffington also addressed Murdoch's complaint that bloggers are parasites, "tech tapeworms" and thieves:
"Plus, let's be honest, many of those complaining the loudest are working both sides of the street... The Wall Street Journal has a tech section that's nothing more than a parasite--uh, I mean, aggregator--of outside content. FoxNews.com has a Politics Buzztracker that bloodsucks--uh, I mean aggregates and links to--stories from a variety of different sources, including the NY Times, the Washington Post, MSNBC and others."
Murdoch and others are frustrated because they charge for content, but they're also still allowing it to be accessed for free. They don't have the courage to go all in on the "pay" business model. Other sites that've tried have failed miserably.
Most credible bloggers aren't parasites, just as college students who include references to source material aren't plagiarists. Unless all news sites on the web collude to charge for content, it's a wide-open new world that traditional media companies have to figure out how to navigate.
It's a business challenge that won't be solved by complaining about it.
Will it?
The fact is that most news agencies add very little value, so there is no incentive to pay anything for it.
Why have 40-100 paid journalists at a Whitehouse press conference, who all ask the same predictable questions and receive canned predictable responses. No value is actually added.
If Someone just wants to give out a set message, they can post a video or a statement online, where no one will have to pay for it.
Why pay for correspondents, which all they are able to do is repeat the numbers given to them by other organizations.
Value _can_ be added by indepth analysis.
People would probably pay 50 cents to see a 10 minute one on one interview with the President if they thought real policy issues would be discussed, that real problems would be honestly confronted by both parties.
I would probably pay 50 cents to watch Frontline or Vanguard because those are programs that do decent journalism.
I might pay 50 cents for an article that broke down the 1000 page health care bill in an accurate, efficient manner with clear well written summaries and links to the actual text by someone who actually understood the thing.
But I won't pay for blind news: repeating a fact that hasn't been analyzed for accuracy, and providing very little in the way of ability to corroborate or contextualize the findings.
In the past, news outlets did both blind reporting and distribution. What people haven't figured out is that the distribution of news was the only thing actually worth anything in the past. In an age where distribution costs of information have been brought to about 0, you can't rely on
I donate because I believe noncommercial news content is generally superior. My donations are not quid pro quo for each peice of content I consume.
Similarly, I may click on a banner ad on a commercial new site if I am interested in the product (I never have, but maybe one day I will). Whether I click on the banner ad or not, I have free access to the content.
When I said "free," I meant I don't have to pay to consume. That's the case with public media news or private. There are free riders in both, but if you get access without cost, that's free.
Only seeing the free rider issue when its convenient to your argument is laughable.
" ... you can access wonderful news content for free."
Matt, public TV and radio aren't "free." If you're donating money, you've paid for it.
You're also undoubtedly paying for others to enjoy it free of charge - and reinforcing their impression that the public media you enjoy so much and support is, indeed, free of cost to everyone. That's the laughable part.
I never said public news media is without bias. It certainly is not. My stomach turns when I turn on Lehrer at night and have to listen to Chevron tell me about how it's actually saving the environment.
Nonetheless, I prefer public news media because I believe it is generally less biased, and certainly more focused on substance over style, than corporate news media.
On the other hand, Matt Taibbi is my favorite journalist, and he works for private media. But I think it's important to note that he works for a outside-the-mainstream news outlet that allows him to speak truth to power.
People like me will do what it takes to access Taibi's work, whereever or however it ends up being distributed. Rupert's content will suffer without easy access to the consumers that make up the least common denominator, and they're easily appeased with other drivel.
I don't understand why it is so hard for news companies to make money. If they provide a website with quality content in a format that is convenient and easy to use, then there will be sufficient users to drive up advertising costs, just like in TV. As far as I know, my local NBC affiliate is still making plenty of money to waste flying their helicopter over Friday night high school football games, and they give their content away for free both on TV and internet. How do they pay for it: advertising. So, how to make money in news: stop talking about washed out celebrities and instead have intelligent coverage of world events. That's why I listen to NPR-- they actually cover the news. My bone to pick with NPR is they don't have advertisers so I'm forced twice a year to be given the guilt trip about not donating.
While I think Murdoch is being a little harsh, at least he's willing to try something new. The fact of the matter is the current model of journalism is not sustainable, and although Arianna Huffington is stock full of arrogant quibs, she doesn't have any alternative solution to this problem.
Something needs to change for most journalists to survive, and I'm glad to see a major news institute willing to try something bold, even if it means failing... miserably.
Despite the plethora of "news" outlets in modern American media, I find it terribly difficult to find worthwhile, unbiased reporting.
I look at the fall of the old news paradigm as an opportunity to rid ourselves of bad actors.
I hope Rupert goes all in, and removes his sites from Google News. He'll never make up the loss in traffic, and, hopefully, News Corp will be less of a player in online news as a result.
- "Quality content is not free."
Rupert's quote from above is laughable. Visit nearly any public television or radio website, and you can access wonderful news content for free. I'd much rather donate to one of those organizations (which I do regularly) than pay Rupert for his drivel.
