[LINK] Newspapers online

[Kim Holburn]

On 2010/Mar/29, at 9:48 PM, David Goldstein wrote:

> The problem with your view of the future of news is verifying the  
> source of the news.

I have that problem now with the mainstream media.  I have always had  
it.  It gets slightly worse after watching Mediawatch.  If you don't  
believe in the news the big news organisations tell you then none of  
that verifying stuff makes much difference.  We clearly look at the  
world very differently.  I agree to differ with your view of these  
things.

> There's good evidence that there will even be more unsubstantiated  
> news than there is now.

There will be more news and so according to Sturgeon's law there will  
be more crud in at least the same ratio.

> As for the way you view news online, well, that's one way. There are  
> a number of ways.
>
> And the introduction of the Times/Sunday Times paywall is possibly  
> Murdoch attempting to protect his print empire, or part of the  
> reason. And he's not interested in people like you viewing his  
> websites since you view only one page and then disappear.

Isn't that better than not viewing that page?  Perhaps not.  My fear  
for the future is that everywhere will become like Adelaide - only  
shoddy Murdoch run tabloids or newspapers of similar quality.  Oh  
wait, it's happening already, aaaargh!!!!  And before you accuse me of  
Murdoch bashing, have you spent much time in Adelaide and read the  
newspapers there?

> So media outlets, not just News, want more committed viewers.

And their answer is to try and lock people into their site and only  
their site.  Good luck with that.

> On the NYT paywall, Times Select, I've already noted it was the  
> opinion columnists who defeated that since they were not happy since  
> very few were reading their columns. But they've probably learnt  
> lessons from last time. Maybe not too.

They could study the news sites that use a paywall successfully....   
Hmmm... they probably are.

Still, like I said, if they're not part of the conversation and  
collaboration on the web they are not going to get much interest.

> And yes Ivan, I agree that Alexa is not perfect. It's rankings are  
> also skewed to people interested in media or technology.
>
> David
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Kim Holburn <kim at holburn.net>
>> To: Link list <Link at anu.edu.au>
>> Sent: Mon, 29 March, 2010 7:49:20 PM
>> Subject: Re: [LINK] Newspapers online
>>
>>
> 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.
>
>> href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/business/media/18times.html?_r=1 
>> "
>> target=_blank
>>> 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 <> href="mailto:kim at holburn.net">kim at holburn.net>
>>> To: Link list
>> <> href="mailto:Link at anu.edu.au">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="> target=_blank >http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paragraph"
>> target=_blank
>>>>> 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 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