15
Is Journalism Dead?
That's the title of the seminar I'm in right now at the Kauffman Foundation. It began with a speech from former Boston Globe writer David Warsh, who proclaimed that printed newspapers are not going away. He said there will always be an audience for the convenience of a physical paper. I'm not so sure.
George Mason economist and blogger Tyler Cowen asked the obvious question: If everyone will be carrying around a device that is a "reader", a phone, email, internet, etc... who's going to be buying the newspaper?
Now, we've moved on to a panel that has broadened the discussion.
Atlantic columnist Virginia Postrel cites what Esther Dyson said about news content back in the mid-90's -- that the price of content will eventually go to zero because of competition. Currently, The Wall Street Journal is the rare exception of a news organization that can charge for content online because there's an audience willing to pay for what they see as content that's exceptionally valuable.
The question we're now debating is how other news companies can survive online and how journalists will make a living. Some here in the room are saying people will pay for content by writers they like and trust, so creating a "personal brand" will be important.
There's also talk about advertising models and micropayments, where people pay tiny amounts for each bit of content.
I'm curious what you think. Do you currently pay for any online content?
Pages
My friend and I were recently talking about the ubiquitousness of technology in our daily lives. Reading this post makes me think back to that discussion we had, and just how inseparable from electronics we have all become.<br><br>I don't mean this in a bad way, of course! Ethical concerns aside... I just hope that as memory gets less expensive, the possibility of transferring our memories onto a digital medium becomes a true reality. It's a fantasy that I dream about all the time.<br><br>(Posted using SurfV3 for R4i Nintendo DS.)
Do I pay for on-line content? Yes I do. I pay for on-line content from trade publications in the fields I work in.
The argument that information "should be free" is, to me, laughable. It takes labor to extract information from where it is hidden, or from the noise of the world, just as it takes labor to extract metals from the earth, food from the soil, or justice from the courts. I believe that people who labor do have a right to develop systems that let them earn a living wage for the service they provide.
I don't like to pay for news information. I think everyone as tax payers and citizens of the world is entitled to free news information. It is our right to know what is happening around us. I agree that institutions like the wall street journal charge for providing information from which people can make money. I think that charging for ads should be enough, try doing that for online ads from corporations and a smaller fee for general population. I don't agree with branding because it might make things more partial...so many things we grew up with are changing....
Can't do the crossword on my phone. And you can read print media by flashlight when the power is out. :-)
I also agree with A. Rutkowski about the trustworthiness of the print media. Obviously every publication has its own slant, but at least in theory there are human beings who putting their real names on what they write and are being paid to do so. I also regard the Internet publications by known entities - such as Marketplace - as trustworthy, but information from random sources is dubious.
(Kinda reminds me of the famous New Yorker cartoon where two dogs are sitting in front of a computer. Caption: "On the Internet nobody knows you're a dog.")
I'm a librarian at a university and part of my duties are teaching information literacy classes to students. Ironically I use that New Yorker Internet cartoon. I emphasize the point that more reliable sources to use for doing research and some leisure reading are from traditional news sources. Libraries are under utilized places that pay large sums of money for access to print and online (databases) sources.
I am a casual reader of a few financial news pages. I used to enjoy Nouriel Roubini's RGE Monitor site until they decided to start charging - $2500 per year for an everday user like me. He is a brilliant guy, but I will never get that kind of value.
However, I could see paying "microamounts" for reading individual articles on his or some other quality site. I would consider signing up as a member for an arrangement that charged me a small incremental amount each time I actually used the content.
Do I pay for content? No, and I probably won't until they figure out a pricing model that more closely approximates the old newspaper and/or cable models. The thing about newspapers was that you paid a modest fee for the entire paper, and subscribers that read every day pay way less. I'm gonna have to pay $.99 to read Ann Landers? To heck with that. Radio and TV has always been free, or if you do pay, such as with cable, satrad, or NPR you get a big bang for the buck.
If I were to have to subscribe to the equivalent of every single piece content that used to be in the newspaper, or on the TV or radio individually that's some serious coin. My checks to NPR are somewhat more modest than your previous poster...
I agree completely with what Charlie posted. For one large reason: *when* do people get their news, and how available and easy to access is it?
As for NPR - you can get it in the car, when you wouldn't be (or shouldn't be for safety reasons - cell phone, eating, etc.) doing anything else that is productive. That makes the value extremely high.
Regarding print news, I highly doubt it will go away. Yes, phone / laptops / etc are portable, but the relative ease of reading or skimming a newspaper vs. looking up stories on your iPhone (or other device) is substantial. The opportunity cost of reading a paper over waiting for some story to load on my phone that I might not end up reading and having to navigate back again.. clear choice in my mind.
Also, do I trust printed news over almost anything online? Yes. Why? Even thought anything has a slant or perspective to it, someone has to pay to get it out there; whereas a blog or story online could come from anyone, anywhere, for any reason (my post for example ;).
The key will be staying solvent financially. Newsprint might need to become more market focused instead of trying to cover every subject out there; podcasts might still be free but included a short advertisement at the beginning; and NPR will still rely on engaged citizens to support it.
-A
Pages
