[LINK] Newspapers online
Richard Chirgwin
rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au
Tue Mar 30 10:02:26 AEDT 2010
David Goldstein wrote:
> 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.
>
Adelaide is, in effect, a one-publisher town.
I probably swim against the tide here, but I don't actually consider the
Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph to be comparable. But
maybe it's just that one uses longer words.
> It doesn't help that Australian newspapers are cheap compared to their American or British counterparts.
>
It probably does help; at least in terms of limiting the decline of
circulation ... but I'd have to do more analysis than I have time for at
the moment to assess that. Cheap newspapers would surely be considered a
good thing, in terms of access to information (setting aside the
Internet's impacts).
Australia has also long claimed relatively high per-capita newspaper
readership - I suppose I should go and source some data on this, because
I would suppose that newspaper circulation vs. Internet penetration
would make an interesting metric ...
> As for your "shoddy Murdoch tabloids", The Wall Street Journal, Times and Sunday Times and The Australian don't fit in this category.
>
True; the Oz is a broadsheet.
RC
> 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.
>>>>
>
>
More information about the Link
mailing list