[LINK] Newspapers online

[David Goldstein]

Your price comparison is arguably artificial given that for the previous 5 years, up until about 9 months ago, the price comparison was over $2, and up to to $2.50. From memory the New York Times is US$5 on Sundays. So Australian newspapers ARE cheap.

As for the Metro in Europe being free, well, there are free newspapers in Australia too of the same quality.

And of course, if Adelaide's citizens were so unimpressed with their newspapers, there would be some willing entrepreneur who could start another paper. Or Fairfax. Oops. Same deal really. And of course, there's no need to buy the Advertiser, or any other Murdoch newspaper. As you keep saying, there is news for free online.




----- Original Message ----
> From: Kim Holburn <kim at holburn.net>
> To: Link list <Link at anu.edu.au>
> Sent: Tue, 30 March, 2010 1:35:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Newspapers online
> 
> 
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 <> 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 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:> ymailto="mailto:kim at holburn.net" 
> href="mailto:kim at holburn.net">kim at holburn.net"
>> href="mailto:> ymailto="mailto:kim at holburn.net" 
> 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 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="> 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
>>
>>> 
> "
>>> target=_blank
>>>>> 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:> 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">>  
>> 
> ymailto="mailto:> href="mailto:kim at holburn.net">kim at holburn.net"
>> href="mailto:> ymailto="mailto:kim at holburn.net" 
> 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:> ymailto="mailto:Link at anu.edu.au" 
> 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">>  
> 
>>> ymailto="mailto:> href="mailto:Link at anu.edu.au">Link at anu.edu.au"
>> href="mailto:> ymailto="mailto:Link at anu.edu.au" 
> 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="> href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paragraph" target=_blank 
> >http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paragraph 
>>>> " 
> target=_blank
>>> > target=_blank 
> >http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paragraph"
>>>
>> 
> target=_blank
>>>>>> target=_blank >> href="> href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paragraph" 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:> ymailto="mailto:> ymailto="mailto:kim at holburn.net" 
> href="mailto:kim at holburn.net">kim at holburn.net"
>> href="mailto:> ymailto="mailto:kim at holburn.net" 
> 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
>> 
> aim://kimholburn
> skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on
>> 
> request
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Link
>> mailing 
> list
>> href="mailto:> href="mailto:Link at mailman.anu.edu.au">Link at mailman.anu.edu.au">> ymailto="mailto:Link at mailman.anu.edu.au" 
> 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
>>> > href="http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link" target=_blank 
> >http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>
>
>
>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-- 
Kim 
> Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
T: +61 2 61402408  M: 
> +61 404072753
mailto:> 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