Pay to Read

More print publications are considering charging for acess to their on-line editions.
CS Monitor: More US papers mull charging readers for online content

Good luck with that. If some of you can suss out a good solution there, I'd appreciate it, but the papers and mags are missing the obvious.

When I can read the UK papers as easily as I can read the Charlotte Observer, why would I subscribe to the regional paper. In fact, I barely ever read the Dayton paper, which I grew up with. And generally only read the Columbus Dispatch for Crew news.

What would I need to have in order to accept paying for my news? I'd need 'Pay Once-Monthly' for all and everything I can read.

Get that? I couldnt have cared LESS what NYT put behind their pay firewall, a couple years ago and evidently I wasnt alone. I DO wish they'd put the ignorant putz Frank Rich back behind the barrier.. but he is good for the occasional horse laff.

And charging at the door aint gonna get me to pony up for any other site, either.
Poor's hell as I am, if I could get all access for twenty bucks a month... I'd be willing to accept a cookie monster in my browser cache as long as it was SECURE.

That means a single billing entity.

 

I agree, 'fog - what's going to kill newspapers and this idea is that news networks will have the same news available for free as their primary revenue stream (TV) is not impacted. Still, it's sad, though, because we may end up with fewer than two dozen major newspapers left in the country by 2030.

 

I have to say that I don't think it's so sad. The Cleveland Plain Dealer is a fantastically up to date operation. Problem is, that date is 1965. The web has ran laps around the print papers.

I notice that newspapers are behind the times in most cities. Their editorials are almost always the same. I think Mo Dowd and her ilk, on the left and the right, in the financial press and in the political arena, have a template they use to write their issues. So many of them are the same thing -- global warming is an unchallengable fact, Obama is the best president ever, he is doing great to expand the government into health care, why did we ever get into the war, etc. Sorry, but so much of it is opinion (or opinions presennted as facts) that I have heard before. I've had enough, and if that is how you will sell your product, I'm not buying.

In national news, they use the same AP sources as any cable outlet, with the exception that they only update their news once a day. Well, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CSPAN, and the like update their stuff 24/7. Again, the present a lot of opinions as facts here. I'm no journalist, but I thought that their job was to present the facts and let the readers decide for themselves.

In local news, it's more of the same thing from liberals who again make their local articles from a template. This is more of a local thing, as the PD is a very liberal newspaper, but I've heard it all before and I don't appreciate their spin on the news. Again, not everyone is a liberal in Cleveland. We have a lot of choices, and we are not obligated to buy your product.

In sports and lifestyle, ours is so much an on demand society that you can follow what you want on the Browns, the Cavs, Fulham, a good chicken Cacciatore recipe, or fashion tips from any website that you choose, that it isn't worth purchasing a newspaper for it. I am sure that the beat writers for the Browns have probably never heard of Manchester United, certainly haven't heard of Fulham, and if they saw our name, would pronounce it Full-Ham.

Factor the unionization of the industry and subsequent reluctance to change of the writers and you have a recipe for excinction.

I guess it's too bad in that I liked having the Sunday paper in my possession for a long time, but all I ever got from it was aggravation from the politics -- again, I felt that I heard it all before -- and once the web took off, I felt that the PD was a day late and a dollar short on, well, almost everything. I don't miss it, and if they don't radically revamp their business, well, no one ever thought Woolworths or Enron (different issues, but you get what I am saying) would go out of business either.

 

The only way I could see it working as a business model is if you had a conglomerate of papers and mags under one banner. X dollars for access to 20-30 publications, something like that. But you'd have to put all of the major horses back in the barn or else people will just transition to the free ones.

I rather doubt local news would draw enough subscriptions b/c if something that significant happens, you could just go down and drop the $.75 or whatever for the paper on that given day. That's not necessarily a bad strategy, but since you can't control the number of times you'll have something significant enough to drive people to buying that day's paper (especially in a smaller area), you'd have to create reasons.

One recent example was here in SA. The SAEN ran a good piece on Peter Holt (Spurs owner) and Vietnam, as a young soldier and now going back with other vets as an ambassador of sorts. They specifically left it off the website but did use the site to advertise it's availability in the Sunday paper. Sunday paper sales saw a significant increase that week.

 

I think it might be the right direction if for no other reason then it forces the people who need their service to go back to paying for the paper and it prevents blogs from free loading off of them.

Newspapers are obviously a declining force and there is no reversing that but I do think survival is attainable. The key is to maintain their niche audience and ensure that they pay. Simple fact is that papers like the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal still produce original content. They break stories and have a level of depth in their reporting which is unmatched by television or online sources. The vast majority of the population couldn't be bothered regardless but there are a percentage of people who want and need this service. Often they're wealthy decision makers and thus the perfect target for many advertisers.

The same thing can be applied to local papers. You can get the national AP news anywhere but there is simply no where else to go to get the local stuff. Whats going on in the DFL gubernatorial primary, whats the deal with the latest lawsuit against the police/city, whats the latest the leg haggling over light rail? Ditto on sports. If you really follow your local teams you need to read the beat writers to get anything beyond the bare minimum. Its startling when you do know your team or a given news issue how often inaccurate assumptions are repeated by outlets which are not dedicated to them. Again for the majority of the population this is a snore show but there are a core of people who need the service. If the papers would get their head out of the sand they'd dedicate 90% of their resources to covering these stories which are not duplicated elsewhere.

The example of success that I point to is The Economist. Again the vast majority of people will never pick one up but there are enough people who pay $5 every week. (and the snob appeal ensures that they're proud to do it) Quite simply, their range of coverage is unmatched by anyone and they make it a point to offer editorial perspective which is unique from all others. They don't bother with the obvious which everyone is talking about like Time, Newsweek, ect. They cover the stuff you haven't heard about yet. Its common to read about something in the Economist only to see the national media pick up on it a month later. As a result their circulation and ad revenue have continued to grow. It can be done.

 

Wanna hear something crazy? Both David Simon, Creator of The Wire and Baltimore's greatest resident and Rupert Murdoch agree on paying for online news content.

Granted, for VERY different reasons.

Speaking of Simon, if you haven't heard or read his testimony before that congressional committee (about newspapers becoming nonprofits) you should do it right now. The original link on senate.gov has died, so go here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 96415.html

 

I almost wonder if the papers shouldn't just abandon the web. Force people who want local news to join your regular subscribers in buying the paper. It would depend on how big a market that is. I'd imagine it's a shrinking market as, while I'm not one, it's probably primarily comprised of baby boomers. But I am a newspaper subscriber. Being an avid reader, there's just something "right" about holding something in my hands and reading it. Plus it's a welcome break from looking at so many various screens all day (monitor, phone, tv, etc).

Don's probably right, the dinosaur is dying and it's just a matter of time, but I'll be sad when that day arrives. Hopefully they can come up with some strategy to stave off that date. I don't think Pay to Read online is gonna do it though.

 

Let's make it clear that Spencer is the only one who puts forward the overall mainstream view on the value and quality of the Press.
someone needed to do it.

Thanks, Spencer.

Well, I've been thinking about that premise. Indeed it is the classical premise for the paper press. Or the mainstream inside the circle media for that matter.

And yet it is utter baloney! Made from imitation Chicken and real Pork.
Not to attack Spencer for the view, to attack the premise of the view

Perhaps someone would like to point out some 'in depth' NYT reporting on The Climate Change fraud.
I dont read the Economist but I havent seen any references to them on the subject, either. Strange considering the TRILLIONS of dollars and international economies at stake.

And now all the corruption and fraud are coming to light...and not just 'speculation on'.. hard clear connection of fact, where is the NYT?

Speculating on whether or not the Tea Party is 'real'.

Hell, where's the WSJ?
I guess I should point out that the Brit press, from the Mirror all the way to the Guardian are covering this, as far their particular editorial policies will allow, anyway.

Exactly WHAT MSM organ or publication drove the investigation of the obvious on this.. ?
Hell, where's the 'Professional Journalists' on this!
Here's an 'EXPERT VETERAN JOURNALIST'

And then he goes on to cite recently disproven fact after disproven fact as PROOF that any press publication of sceptic views is an outrage.
You tell me who is the charlatan! The guy can't even be bothered to do research on 'What he knows!'

And lest you tend to just write off blogs as 'extremist advocacy', read this on a skeptic blog:
Paul Dennis responds to the Indy

Now, just to make it clear, that is an indictment of the press.. never mind what press.. posted by someone who is NOT in concert with the general opinion expressed in the blog.

So you tell me who is it really WANTS to get to the bottom of the facts!
-----
Let's just take a local issue of a few years ago.. How about the Duke Lacrosse case?
Something to just tsk-tsk about for a few days in the national papers.. but ONE reporter in a BLOG thought it smelled really fishy. His paper wouldnt print his suspicions but it would carry it in their blog, as I recall.
How that 'indepth reporting' from the national press turn out there?
-------
Closer to Spencer:
What's the story on intimidation against free speech by provincial and national HRC's?
Spencer doesnt know because only National Post will carry it, other than the occasional head scratcher in the Globe and Mail.. as an 'opinion piece, of course.
Course Spencer didnt think it was a big deal at the time so I understand. But it was bloggers that encouraged the government to tell the HRC's to get real.
Took the near failure of MacLean's to get it done, though, didnt it.
--------
No, when Murdoch buys the NYT masthead for $1.98 in a few years time, it wont be because bloggers stole their intellectual property, it will be because there IS no relevant intellectual property.

 

And just to aggravate Don and Spencer a little more, I think I saw that horse's tail twitch:
I wrote the bloviation above BEFORE I read Mark Steyn on the same subject.

The {journalistic} poodles are heading for the endangered species list, and deservedly so.
Go figger... there's sublight channel open there?
- - -- - - - - - -- - - -
I watched Palin's speech last night on CSpan. And I mean I watched it, not just listened to it.
Less than overwhelming.. a lot less.. yet:

Nashville Post blog:
Beginning Of The End: Sarah Palin Hijacks The Tea Party Movement

uh.. no..
When I say I WATCHED it, I meant exactly that. The audience was not exactly jumping and screaming in standing ovation.

Palin didnt hijack anything. She was exactly who she is and her speech was rambling, redundant and only concentrated on one main point:
The Tea Parties dont NEED a leader.

In defense of her, though, I have to add that it would have been a lot better if she'd used a teleprompter and had someone write the speech instead of more or less doing it from index card cues.

There's a lesson there, somewhere, for somebody. OR a lot of somebodies.

Now, let's see how the rest of the MSM address that.
- - - - - -- - -
Oh.. they will probably do it like THIS
CNN: President Obama to throw bipartisan Super Bowl party

That was by:
CNN White House Correspondent Suzanne Malveaux, a 'PRofeckingfessional Journalist', dontcha know.

Well, then. Would it be too much to expect that Journalist to duly report, as Byron York does:

And Cao remains the lone Republican. But
I guess that makes the SuperBowl party 'BiPartisan' ..
.. Oh, maybe she REALLY meant in terms of the Teams involved.
My Bad!
- - - - -

Oh, the ammo just keeps on a'rollin in...
Scroll up to what I said about NYT's Frank Rich, then read his current column on DADT and weep:
Smoke the Bigots Out of the Closet

This is an opinion that the NYT board pays this cretin to write.

Now... if any of you want to debate that point by point, just scrape it into another thread and we'll do that.
But would you pay two freakin cents for that piece of crap postulation? No matter how many links he plugs in for Don?

Compare to the debate we had here... which do you think is the more adult and reasoned?

 

I believe the essence of your point is that print journalism is a frivolous industry produced and consumed by frivolous people whose services once gone will barely be noticed let alone missed. In fact I believe at this point it is you who represents the mainstream view, not I.

You read many things into my post which I didn't in fact say or imply but the essence of my point is that print journalism provides a service valued by a slice of the population and that if that slice can be made to pay for the service the industry can survive. Your refute of my case was to restate all your problems with the industry (journalists you don't like, individual stories they've been caught out on, op-ed views and narratives you disagree with). I can't say that I'm surprised that you're among the vast majority of people who are unwilling to pay to read. I also can't say that this does much to counter my view that print is valuable and economically salvageable.

You have stated that you have long since stopped paying for and consuming print. This makes it difficult to take your evaluation of the product seriously. I wouldn't ask the guy who lives in a co-op and rides the bus for his evaluation of various SUV's. Go to the library and read the last four weeks worth of the Economist. (or look at their circulation patterns) If you still think they provide no value or that the businesses model is not viable then I'll start reevaluating my views.

I am not by the way dismissing the role or accomplishments of blogs. When I wrote of them 'freeloading' off print I had in mind the likes of the huffington post which simply links up print reporting for their own readers. These readers, people who are obviously intent on reading the news are exactly the people who need to be made to pay if print is to survive. Lets say that every one of those stories played out exactly as you say. Great, thats awesome. Newspapers should have done it, I agree. I have however failed to come across a blog though which produces hundreds of articles a week and puts them in a compact readable format as the NYT or any large newspaper does. If these papers no longer exist will various blogs cover every issue which the papers formally did? Will anyone know where to go to find them? Will they be immune to falling asleep on a story?

Have we not gone over the HRC thing? Have you not tried to read my mind on this issue before? Ezra Levant, yeah I know. Was when it happened too. Contrary to what you seem to have heard it is a known issue here. If the CBC covers an issue, its not an ignored issue. Sorry. Should it be relevant I do in fact read the National Post.

 

No, Spencer... my point of reference is to your statement that only print {or established media} journalism does the in depth reporting needed to establish the "Common Wisdom of Society". My take and words.

And that various other new media, including blogs, ride on it.
In fact, over the last few years, exactly the opposite is true.

As to the last:
Blogs will cover what the bloggers are interested in.

Right now there's a whole lot of interest in discovering just how corrupt the scientific and geo-political process has become when there's LOTS of money -or reputations- involved.

 

NY {state} paper starts the process, no idea where to go with it.

It is really a nice web site

Amazingly some people think, and I sorta concur that the best outcomes could be seen by the locals. But they have to find a way of billing without shutting people off.
Supposedly Newsday spent 5 million to transition and got 35 subscribers out of it.