[LINK] Newspapers online

Kim Holburn kim at holburn.net
Mon Mar 29 19:49:20 AEDT 2010


On 2010/Mar/29, at 6:33 PM, David Goldstein wrote:

> It's my job/business to know what media is out there.
>
> As for the free websites, such as blogs, that provide "news". Well,  
> there are very few of these who can afford to find investigative  
> journalism, the little that happens now. There are none that, at the  
> extreme, can afford offices in a diverse range of places like the  
> New York Times or BBC.

The news doesn't have to end up like current news organisations.  It  
doesn't have to be concentrated organisations like we have today that  
do it all.  Lots of things just fall off the news radar.  As news  
online changes there may be one person reporting on one issue here,  
another there.   There may be reporters who are expert in their own  
narrow fields.  People reporting on areas that are simply not covered  
by MSM.  There are news aggregators that are entirely different  
organisations.  Several different aggregators aggregating different  
news in different ways.

People read news online very differently, I know I do.  I have  
interests that don't match the interests of most newspapers.  I can  
tailor aggregators to get personalised news.  I remember a discussion  
years ago about newsagents.  We are moving towards that although I  
think the original idea is somewhat like artificial intelligence - we  
won't see it as envisaged for a long time.  If news sites opt out of  
the web *conversation* they will lose out.

> Decent journalism has to be paid for.

You keep saying that but journalism may end up looking completely  
different on the web and the business model will probably be different  
too.  It doesn't have to be anything like it used to be.  If you  
concentrate all that movement into one organisation you have a  
different kind of access to advertising.  Advertising itself on the  
web is being aggregated by advertising aggregators (perhaps like  
google).

> And you seem to neglect that the vast majority of online news sites  
> were originally offline.

No I didn't forget that.  Many of those sites tried paywalls too.

> Or if not, they source their news from somewhere like Reuters, AP,  
> AFP... looking at Alexa's list of top 20 news sites reflects this.

I did in fact mention this in my last email.

> As for Murdoch and the beginning of this thread, it began by your  
> incorrect assertion that The Times and Sunday Times were not the  
> first mass market newspapers to put up such a paywall.

The NYT has already had a paywall and ditched it so no, the Times and  
the Sunday Times were not the first according to your criteria.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/business/media/18times.html?_r=1
Times to Stop Charging for Parts of Its Web Site
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
Published: September 18, 2007
The New York Times will stop charging for access to parts of its Web  
site, effective at midnight tonight.

Skip to next paragraph
Related A Letter to Readers About TimesSelect What the Blogs are Saying
The move comes two years to the day after The Times began the  
subscription program, TimesSelect, which has charged $49.95 a year, or  
$7.95 a month, for online access to the work of its columnists and to  
the newspaper’s archives. TimesSelect has been free to print  
subscribers to The Times and to some students and educators.

> Which I corrected.

Which you gave your opinion.  One with which I do not happen to agree.

> As for my interest, just correcting the inaccuracies in one of  
> several online issues that I have followed for quite a while now. It  
> could even have an impact on my business.
>
> If you want to start a discussion on journalism, even the quality of  
> it in Australia, feel free and if it's interesting I'll contribute.

You go first.

>
> David
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Kim Holburn <kim at holburn.net>
>> To: Link list <Link at anu.edu.au>
>> Sent: Mon, 29 March, 2010 5:40:40 PM
>> Subject: Re: [LINK] Newspapers online
>>
>>
> 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:
>> href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paragraph" target=_blank
>>> 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:> ymailto="mailto:kim at holburn.net"
>> href="mailto:kim at holburn.net">kim at holburn.net
>> aim://kimholburn
> skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on
>> request
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Link
>> mailing list
>> href="mailto:Link at mailman.anu.edu.au">Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>> href="http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link" target=_blank
>>> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

-- 
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













More information about the Link mailing list