Paywalls To Drive Journalists Away In Addition To Consumers? 131
Hugh Pickens writes "With news organizations struggling and newsroom jobs disappearing, each week brings new calls from writers and editors who believe their employers should save themselves by charging for Internet access. However, in an interesting turnabout, the NY Times reports that Saul Friedman, a journalist for more than 50 years and a columnist for Newsday since 1996, announced last week he was quitting after Newsday decided that non-subscribers to Newsday's print edition will have to pay $5 a week to see much of the site, making it one of the few newspapers in the country to take such a plunge. 'My column has been popular around the country, but now it was really going to be impossible for people outside Long Island to read it,' he says. Friedman, who is 80, said he would continue to write about older people for the site 'Time Goes By.' 'One of the reasons why the NY Times eventually did away with its old "paywall" was that its big name columnists started complaining that fewer and fewer people were reading them,' writes Mike Masnick at Techdirt. 'Newspapers who decide to put up a paywall may find that their best reporters decide to go elsewhere, knowing that locking up their own content isn't a good thing in terms of career advancement.'"
Reporters are basically bloggers then (Score:5, Insightful)
Opinion columnists are like bloggers (Score:5, Insightful)
career advancement? (Score:0, Insightful)
"...their best reporters decide to go elsewhere, knowing that locking up their own content isn't a good thing in terms of career advancement."
"Friedman, who is 80.."
Yes. Yes, that is obviously why. More readers to further his career.. yes, that must be it.
tough life for writers (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact is that writing as a profession has such low barriers to entry these days these days (all you need is a keyboard, an internet connection, and a deal in place to host your published ideas), and the concept that ideas from certain writers are more valuable than others seems to be misguided.
Instead, sites should focus on improving their most worthwhile content by making sure their best writers are writing IN DEPTH INVESTIGATIVE STORIES that elevate the nationwide discussion. For what it's worth, the strategy of publishing mounds of opinionated drivel is being demonstrated to lead to minimal success.
Though, while we're here I'd like to plug my own source of potentially opinionated drivel at my site [robertvandyk.com] and invite anybody who thinks my ideas are worthwhile to help me get some of my ideas published in the mainstream media (which unrelentlessly still controls 90% of the power within the news publication game).
Not "Reporters" or "Journalists"! (Score:5, Insightful)
Both the Newsday columnist who resigned over the Newsday paywall and the NY Times columnists who protested the NY Times paywall are just that: columnists, not reporters or journalists.
Columnists are people for whom the newspaper is a vehicle for the broad distribution of their writings, which are not even notionally constrained by the standards of fact reporting, or even news analysis. Columns are vehicles by which the columnists ideas, pet causes, ideology, other products (like books), etc., are promoted. The interests of columnists may be very different than the interests of journalists with regard to paywalls.
Re:career advancement? (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey, given some people live upwards of 110+ years of age there is no reason he can't continue to increase his fame for the next 20 as long as he's in good health. It's not the norm, but neither is running a marathon at 70; people still want to do it on occasion.
newspapers commit suicide with poor pricing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Reporters are basically bloggers then (Score:4, Insightful)
"You're talking about columnists, not reporters. They are different."
Really? Because the best I can tell, the only difference is that columnists are upfront about injecting their opinions into theior writing , and journalists pretend that they don't - sometimes even to themselves.
wall building (Score:4, Insightful)
Modern news distribution derives its value from two things: First, the reliability of its product. Second, the timeliness of its product. Newspapers and magazines fail the test because they are release daily, weekly, or even monthly -- whereas other distribution mediums can do it in seconds or minutes. This is not, however, what killed them. The deciding factor is therefore the reliability of the product. Unfortunately, the news industry has made several very bad decisions regarding this:
First, was catering to certain groups (liberals, conservatives, etc.) and following the demographics rather than the story. While this improves profitibility over the short term, it sets things up for a diminishing returns cycle -- to maintain the higher profitibility the product must be targeted more with each iteration, leading to an alienation of those who do not share the increasingly-restricted viewpoint. That is to say, they become aware of the bias and lose confidence in the product. This "short sell" ideology permeates many industries -- in some cases, the results are more dramatic and immediate than other cases.
Second, was the packaging of such information. Even leading up to the 9/11 media event, packaging of information from major news sources was being called into question. Scandals rocked the New York Times, Washington Post, and all major television networks within a three-year timespan -- why? In every case, the rush to get the information to press caused errors to be made. In other words, a lack of process control. The coverage of 9/11 -- with its constant flood of meaningless and un-contextualized data overloaded people. Simply put, anything that's "hot" is over-saturated and in their rush to deliver the latest "news" they bury people in a crap-flood of information -- there was a loss of impact.
The third factor in the loss of reliability of major media organizations was a lack of peer review. Because most of the media distribution in this country is owned by a select few individuals and/or corporations, the industry homogenized. There was no further innovation. In the quest for profitibility, only methods of reporting and investigation were used that guaranteed eyeballs. As history has shown time and time again, the key to the long-term survival of a business, or industry, is adapability. This was sacrificed when the industry homogenized into only a few major corporate players -- leading to formulaic products that were too similar to one another.
Finally, the rise of social networking and the internet proved that word of mouth is the most effective way of spreading information that is NOT time-sensitive. Ironically, the random churning of information on the internet was better at distributing stories than decades-old systems of distribution: Why? Because the information had been separated out into a free-format. Like CDs, where you have to purchase the entire album in order to get that one song -- this was how the media operated. No longer -- and the result was that over a period of days or weeks, many millions more would see a given product because of referrals by friends. The news industry failed to capitalize upon this by creating stand-alone product that could be distributed between people and remain intact (for example, with its advertising or "related" content hooks, perhaps in something similar to PDF).
Sounds like a perfect solution. (Score:1, Insightful)
This sounds like the perfect way to solve their financial issues. Why, just the other day I had a fire burning in my back yard. I did what any other sound-minded individual would do: I poured gasoline on the fire. You see, if I make things worse by increasing the rate at which the fire is burning, eventually there will be nothing left to burn and the fire will be gone.
In the same regard, by alienating their employees and consumers, these people will eventually stop taking part in the traditional (and failing) news system. If there are no whining consumers or disgruntled employees, then the problem will be solved! It will burn itself out!
I fail to see any flaws in the plan.
Do they prefer the alternative? (Score:4, Insightful)
Reporters may leave if their newspaper starts charging for content, yes. However, I think a few more reporters might leave if the newspaper goes bankrupt. People aren't buying newspapers any more. They may not want to pay for online content now, but that's mostly because the 'free' online content is being subsidized by papers which are rather quickly going out of business. As that happens, the remaining papers will end up charging for online content (since how else will they make any money) and people will either pay for it (because there's no other option for getting good journalism) or not pay for it (because they'd rather read free blogosphere crap). But if there's one thing I'll lay odds on, it's that expensive content (like good journalism) isn't going to be available for free. TANSTAAFL, you know.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Return of the Pamphleteer (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree completely. I think people will absolutely pay for news--but opinion is, as said upwards of here, worth exactly crap in terms of monetary value. And so little of newsreporting today has even the PRETENSE of objectivity and professional integrity that nobody is interested in paying for it. Why pay for bloggers? Blogs are free and free for a reason.
This is why the Wall Street Journal's readership is actually going UP while their competitors are losing money right and left. The WSJ has actual reporting going on, which is thorough, professionally edited and mostly free from bias and agenda. And they do a good job of keeping their news pages and opinion pages distinct from each other, unlike the Times and most of the now-dying newspaper industry.
Journalism used to be a craft, one that involved not only finding out what happened but reporting what happened objectively, leaving it to the reader to make up his or her own mind about what the story really means. Nowadays ersatz "journalists" think it's ok to be social crusaders, and objectivity is laughed off as though it were obsolete and unreasonable. (I graduated one of the nation's top journalism schools, and saw this firsthand.) This mindset is what has the newsroom in the grip of death.
Yes, they are journalists (Score:3, Insightful)
I define as journalists anybody who writes for a publication according to a certain set of standards.
The main standard is that you're committed to telling the truth more than you are to promoting a cause. As Richard Feynman said, if the facts go against your position, you have to report those facts. Same rule for journalists and scientists.
Traditionally, a newspaper columnist started out as a reporter, and after he mastered the job, he moved up to writing a column (sort of like a cop who gets promoted to detective). And Saul Friedman was a reporter at Newsday before he became a columnist.
There was a bad practice at the New York Times and elsewhere of making columnists out of people who had never worked as journalists, and who often had nothing to offer beyond an ideological position. Example: William Kristol.
Molly Ivins wrote about this. She said that when you work as a reporter, you learn how to figure things out and get to the facts in a hurry. You cover a school board meeting, people are throwing charges back and forth, and a reporter has to figure out what's going on. Ivins said that a lot of columnists were political appointees, and never learned how to do that. They never learned basic fact-checking. So they can't even get their basic facts right. Just because some economist at the Heritage Foundation or some guy at the CIA said something, that doesn't mean it's true.
Some bloggers are journalists. They check out their facts, and report the facts no matter whose ox gets gored. I pay to read that.
Some bloggers just spout their own opinions and cut and paste whatever they happen to agree with. They're not journalists. Most of them aren't worth reading, even for free.
Re:Reporters are basically bloggers then (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:tough life for writers (Score:2, Insightful)
Investigative journalism can't be done in your spare time. However, you could be an "expert source" that contributes to investigative stories done by professional journalists.
There is a need for truly ground-breaking investigative stories to come from journalists who are well-connected politically so they can get interviews from real decision-makers about what's going on in the world. I suspect Watergate would not have been possible if a world where the main source of news is the rants and raves coming from the Blogosphere.
reliability and bias (Score:2, Insightful)
-
You said:
Thesis: The MSM has to deal with an audience that is polarized, distracted, transient, and lazy. The appropriate product for that audience is biased, sensationalized, cheap, and simplified. The thougthful online audience doesn't pay the bills. This leads the MSM to pander to the polarized, lazy audience, resulting in a product whose content and style alienates thoughtful people. A vicious circle that results in a gradual loss of reliability.
1) The polarization of the audience is a pressure external to the MSM to which the big papers and television have had to adapt. Culture War [wikipedia.org] is a term that describes the aggressive, polarized public sphere America has been experiencing for about 30 or 40 years. The idea that America is at war with itself has appealed to political activists who promote extreme rhetoric advocating their point of view. We have seen the rise of privately funded "think tanks" producing analysis and science that c/overtly promotes a certain line of thinking. The MSM has been met by the non-MSM, like conservative talk radio, which has taught millions of people the New York Times is a commie rag. This is the atmosphere to which a MSM news organization has to adapt. The MSM papers are caught up in a whirlpool of accusations of bias from 2 sides (and more) from which it is very difficult to escape. Read the comments sections of many papers for signs of the insanity, especially on articles linked from the DrudgeReport.
You have called this a loss of reliability of the news paper. We might call it a loss of reliability of the reader who is so consumed by his point of view that he interprets every alternative point of view as a declaration of war. These readers can no longer be trusted to demand quality journalism. Instead they want affirmative journalism. This leads to a lowest-common-denominator media analysis that screams bias everywhere it goes.
2) The MSM no longer has a lock on the attention of the average person. Hard news is hard to make and hard to consume, and most people don't bother.
Re:Reporters are basically bloggers then (Score:4, Insightful)
Getting into journalism "to do good" misses the point of journalism entirely.
Provide analysis to "do good". Be a journalist by reporting the damn facts.
I couldn't disagree more. Publishing objective truth and honest analysis is 'doing good.'
First, if you don't think truth-telling shouldn't be pursued in the spirit of public service, then what motivation would you suggest?
It takes a thick skin and a lot more motivation than simple greed to endure the grind of getting and publishing facts. The publisher of our national daily has been threatened, beaten and even briefly jailed for publishing the truth. One of his reporters was beaten so badly she miscarried. She's still on the beat. There are far safer ways of making money than that.
Second, analysis that isn't just as well-sourced and researched as straight reporting isn't worth the paper it's printed on. I'll agree that in the US there's a noticeable dearth of good analysis in print. But elsewhere in the world, that's not always the case.
For my part, I work very closely with the reporters to verify facts and events, and I have also conducted original research as well. I've been wrong on points of fact once or twice, but not very often.
Opinion is... well, opinion. I'm paid to have one. But to the extent that time and opportunity allow, it's based on a full appreciation of the facts and solid, clear reasoning. And that is the good I'm trying to do.
Re:wall building (Score:1, Insightful)
If your interpretation of "news" is the latest headlines...
News, n.: 1. A report of a recent event; intelligence; information. 2. The presentation of a report on recent or new events in a newspaper or other periodical or on radio or television.
There are plenty of weekly, bi-monthly and monthly publications that not only are profitable, but also have increasing readership numbers.
I'm going to hell for this, but...Citation needed. Even if it were true, it's still a fallacy of composition: You're arguing from the specific to the general. My statement is made about the entire industry, not specific segments within it. As a general statement, it will hold broadly true but not necessarily be correct in every case.
I end up with broad and multiple perspectives, analysis and all the relevant facts, and come up away with a full understanding of what happened. What have you got? Timely and reliable reporting telling you that something did?
Whatever you're ending up with is not "broad and multiple perspectives". What you're talking about is called an analysis, which includes one or more interpretations of a given event in context with other events and/or information. The fact that "broad and multiple perspectives" are present (or not) in the analysis does not create any added value. News is the report of an event and/or facts. An analysis takes that information and draws conclusions about the objects presented and includes predictions about the future based on the information presented.
What I stated earlier are some of the same principles behind intelligence (intelligence gathering). The same principles apply in the civilian world, for much the same reason: It's a way of sorting and refining information in such a way that informed decisions can be made. I will again state the relevant factors:
1. Timeliness.
A transmission from the enemy that a missile launch will occur in 10 minutes. In 10 minutes, that communication will have no value. There is a window of opportunity after which the information loses value. Likewise, reporting that a child has been kidnapped is a time-sensitive matter -- the likelihood of a successful retrieval drops substantially over the course a few hours. Civilian reporting agencies play a crucial role in public safety here, but can only do so if the information can be distributed quickly.
2. Verification.
There's a lot of difference between an informant claiming that a terrorist is planning to bomb the town square at noon, and an intercepted cell phone call to his commander. The source of the information is also crucial in establishing trust. In a civilian context, consider the case of Deep Throat [wikipedia.org]. The scenario could not have occurred if the Washington Post was not a trusted reporting agency.