[LINK] Newspapers online

[David Goldstein]

You complain of Adelaide's newspapers, but why is Adelaide any different to say, Sydney or Melbourne? Sydney and Melbourne have 2 shoddy newspapers each, Adelaide has one. Big deal. And everyone has access to the ABC and The Australian.

It doesn't help that Australian newspapers are cheap compared to their American or British counterparts.

As for your "shoddy Murdoch tabloids", The Wall Street Journal, Times and Sunday Times and The Australian don't fit in this category.

David



----- Original Message ----
> From: Kim Holburn <kim at holburn.net>
> To: Link list <Link at anu.edu.au>
> Sent: Mon, 29 March, 2010 10:26:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Newspapers online
> 
> 
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 <> ymailto="mailto:kim at holburn.net" 
> 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 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="> 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 
> 
>> "
>> target=_blank
>>> > 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:> href="mailto:kim at holburn.net">kim at holburn.net">> ymailto="mailto:kim at holburn.net" 
> href="mailto:kim at holburn.net">kim at holburn.net>
>>> To: Link 
> list
>> <> href="mailto:> href="mailto:Link at anu.edu.au">Link at anu.edu.au">> ymailto="mailto:Link at anu.edu.au" 
> 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 >> href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paragraph" target=_blank 
> >http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paragraph"
>> 
> target=_blank
>>>>> target=_blank >> 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 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