[LINK] Newspapers online

Kim Holburn kim at holburn.net
Tue Mar 30 13:35:37 AEDT 2010


On 2010/Mar/30, at 9:47 AM, 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 only has newspapers owned by the US citizen.

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

What an odd thing to say.  Can you back that up with any actual  
facts?  The Times is £1 (1 pound) = AU$1.60, is that a lot more  
expensive than Australian newspapers?  The Metro is free.  There are  
lots of free newspapers in Europe.  The big ones are not that much  
more expansive than here.  I don't know about the US.

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

Yeah, you're right, calling them tabloids is technically incorrect.

>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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