[LINK] Newspapers online

[Kim Holburn]

On 2010/Mar/29, at 4:39 PM, David Goldstein wrote:

> The Guardian makes it as a global paper as it gets more, or very  
> close to more, of its readers outside of the the UK than in the UK.  
> I doubt any non-English language newspapers would have such online  
> readership.
>
> It's not really relevant as to whether a paywall will work or not  
> though. And maybe a division of global mass market and national mass  
> market would be relevant.

I'm not sure I understand your system of paragraph layouts.  I guess  
on reading closely that your second paragraph is about the things you  
talk about in the first.

Grammar hint:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paragraph :
Paragraph: A passage in text that is about a different subject from  
the preceding text, marked by commencing on a new line....

> Maybe you haven't noticed the trend for major quality non-English  
> newspapers to have an online English version as well? This has grown  
> in the last couple of years. It's the only way to get a global  
> readership.

There's an old joke:
Q: What do you call someone who speaks 3 languages? A: trilingual.
Q: What do you call someone who speaks 2 languages? A: bilingual.
Q: What do you call someone who speaks 1 language?  A: American (or  
Australian).

Would you even know if there were a major global Chinese or Spanish or  
Russian news media company that had no English presence?

> Anyway, back to the topic at hand, do I think newspapers will make  
> money from online advertising? Not a lot. It won't pay for the  
> journalism. I can't see any other method on the horizon apart from  
> paywalls. First The Times and Sunday Times. The New York Times has  
> said it will follow. Le Monde is introducing one to parts of its  
> newspaper.

You're assuming that with a disruptive technology like the internet  
that the old media empires will transition just like they are to the  
new system.  I really doubt it.  There are already news sites that are  
working and even making money online.  Sites that have never had nor  
will never have a print presence.

> Once it gets to a critical mass of newspapers making their content  
> only available to payers, then they will in all likelihood take off.

Good dream.  You forget all the new online media that won't go down  
that path.  Pay is going to find it hard to compete with free.

> The number of online readers will drop dramatically,

We agree on this.

> but news outlets seem unconcerned, or happy to wear it, about  
> visitors who look at one page and disappear. They want readers to  
> stay.
>
> So I'd guess The Times/Sunday Times are prepared to see a huge drop  
> in casual readers and see regular and paying readers stay.
>
> What will happen? Who knows. But journalism has to be paid for and  
> apart from the BBC and ABC who get their money from a licence fee/ 
> government, and The Guardian who can possibly sustain losses forever  
> more, the loss of print advertising income is not sustainable.

The old "Journalism has to be paid for" argument.  Except in  
traditional newspapers it's paid for by advertising.  55% (at least)  
of the actual articles are from company press releases.  In big media  
companies they pass articles around between papers and buy stories  
from wire services.  Not that much original content anyway.  Mostly  
just bought or paid for content.

People said the same thing about encyclopaedias, and look - there's  
one that doesn't have to pay for content, is free and is fast  
becoming, despite all the catches, the global standard source.

The internet is infested with "blogs" that are effectively news  
sites.  There is journalism aplenty.  Try stopping it.  Actually  
that's what old media (read Murdoch and others in Europe) are trying  
to do with their attacks on google and search sites and aggregators.   
Trying to stop all the non-corporate news from getting publicity and  
access.  Expect lots more attacks on google.

> As for my views of Murdoch. I can't actually see how they are  
> relevant to the discussion here.

This discussion started with an article about an ongoing Murdoch  
push.  You are the one who keeps on bringing him up and telling us  
that we are bashing him, so why don't you tell us what you think, what  
your interest in this is.  Let us understand where you are coming  
from.  I know it's easier to criticise others and then side-step and  
say we can't criticise you because you've never said what you think.

Kim

-- 
Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
T: +61 2 61402408  M: +61 404072753
mailto:kim at holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request