Why would I pay for a digital subscription when it is all availabloe on the 'web for free?
Because if nobody pays for it, professionally researched and reported news will disappear. In its place we will get pseudo-news that is basically gossip, hearsay, and an unhealthy helping of opinion. Yes, even in the news business, you get what you pay for.
There is an underlying issue on this subject about NYT subscriptions that is more serious than how much people will, or will not pay for the news. The issue is honesty. How can we believe a story posted on some online blog that quotes anonymous sources about unnamed individuals at the NYT expressing concern about the cost of subscriptions on the iPad? Think deeper people. This is not about the NYT or subscription rates or anything but undermining the iPad and Apple.
Yes, I am sure that there is a lot of "sturm and drang" going on at the Times. There is wailing and gnashing of teeth at EVERY newspaper and magazine being published. Printed material, especially news-related, is on a downhill skid. So what better screen to put up about "publishers being concerned about the impact of the iPad on online literature and bookselling." Makes a good cover story.
I didn't see one damned article about Amazon's e-books being the demise of physical book printing. No, but the minute Steve Jobs says that the iPad will have an e-reader function for the likes of NYT and the iBook store, the storm of venom started to flow. I have been reading a lot of blogs on tech sites in the past few months and I see interesting trends.
The trends are that non-Apple writers (i.e.: those who haven't used an Apple product since the Apple IIe in grade school,) are now suddenly Apple and Mac experts and know EXACTLY what is wrong with the iPad. One techinoblogger actually was stupid enough to make the statement that "the iPad is destined to fail because it cannot run Windows 7." WTF???
That is like saying the reason GM is struggling financially is because they can't use Ford motor parts. It is insane. But I see dozens of articles each day with a subtle underlying message... "Apple will fail" "Steve Jobs is a monster" "iPhones are of the devil." None of this true but the writers keep singing the negative song about all things Apple. Even some of the writers on this so-called Apple insider site write with such venom towards everything that Apple says, or does not say. If Apple doesn't say what these critics want to hear, they say there must be something Apple and the evil Jobs are hiding. And then they quote some unnamed source on some obscure blog, or some inside source close to one of the manufacturing partners in China to verify their point.
But the point is simple. If something is printed online or in print that is not verified by a credible, named source, it is a LIE. Hearsay, innuendo, half truths and myths are not allowed in legal proceedings but they can be sprayed all over so-called journalism. The NYT and all other publications need to worry more about credibility, and not whether people will pay $6, $15 or $30 a month for what they write. Right now, much of what is being written is not worth two cents.
Just for the hell of it, go out and read "news" articles about Apple and the iPad on five different information sources. Look for the facts, and who supposedly stated them. You will find that many of these articles are built on a presupposition, supported by vague projections of half-truths. Many of them have no facts at all nor do they point to real, traceable news sources.
I an not an Apple fan boy but I do think they make superior products to the Wintel computers and smartphones. But if real criticism of Apple and its products is going to be raised, base it on facts and sound philosophy. That is what real journalism is supposed to be. All the rest is just mindless raving.
Newspapers are obsolete. Sorry, they are. The delivery of news is not. I don't watch cable news. I read multiple news source -- very few of which are actually 'news papers'. I read Reuters and AP -- the same source of the majority of 'news' in most news papers. I pay for it by allowing myself to be subjected to advertisements.
This is not about information and ignorance, it is about an industry who's time has past. News will still 'get out'. But newspapers, like most dying industries, are so trapped in their own idiom, and so deep in denial that they are incapable of foresight.
Boutique content shops, either advertiser supported or subscription based are the future. Newspapers are the past.
Ultimately, it is about ignorance. First, the AP and Reuters run only brief stories. Second, they run only brief stories about national or international events. They do not cover local or even regional news. Third, they do zero investigative journalism. I could go on, but the point is, if you are relying on those as sources, then you might as well stick to cable news.
Newsprint may be well on the way towards being obsolete, but if as you insist, journalism itself is obsolete, then a lot of things are also obsolete. Like for instance, democracy.
The reason news content has been free is that it was subsidized by print or broadcast operations, and those aren't cutting the mustard any more. So guess what: It's time to start paying for information that costs money to collect, report, edit, and package. On the other hand, expecting readers to pay the same as print delivery when there are no newsprint, trucking, or associated personnel costs involved is ridiculous.
News content has never been free. Up till now, it was supported by the people who felt a need to know things.
I can't watch cable news...the inanity of Hannity (high school education) and the blathering of obermanm it's all just crap! I read the WSJ, listen to NPR, especially the Diane Rehm show's podcasts while I run. Oh and Bill Maher's podcast too!
Used to get Time and Newsweek and still get our local paper, the AZ republic.
Have subscriptions to MacWorld, Foreign Affairs, AZ Highways, Runner's World, Sail, Scuba, Skiing, Food & Wine, Tennis and Soaring Magazines.
I would pay $30 a month for all the above, rather like cable....but not $30 just for the NYT...Sorry!
As a previous poster said, 'Dear Publishers.....it's 2010!'
This. They bitch that newspaper quality ahs gone done then bitch that they get the same news for free. I only wish NYTimes wouldn't have stated their site is free until 2011.
I think a good model would be to give their loyal print subscribers access to the e-version for free. This will help maintain these customers which could be a problem as each drop will push distribution costs to every other account.
After that marketing will require bean counters but if they are still going to give away their website have to lessen the cost for the e-version, even if they make it as compelling as the print version. I would liked to see a newspaper and magazine section built into the iBook app. I don't want a separate app for each subscription with a separate login and account. I will be more likely to buy more if I can just use my iTS account. I'd also like it to auto-load so when I pick it up it's there waiting for me, like being delivered to my door. I don't want to have to go grab it first.
Overall, I'm disappointed that the focus on making a viable replacement for print media has not been thought out. It's the one thing that could have made the iPad a must have and potentially save publishers still dedicated to quality writing.
What amazes -- no, actually depresses me, is the attitude that everything should be free or not at all. Where did this attitude come from, I wonder? I have some theories, but I honestly wish I didn't.
If the newspapers I read daily were automatically delivered digitally to my iPad every morning, with the same content as the newsprint versions I've been reading for years, then I'd pay for that. I'm not sure I'd pay as much as I'm paying for the newsprint version ($10 a week, for the LA Times), but I'd have to see how it looked and felt to read. I think I could learn to live without the newsprint, and I could certainly learn to live without the trip down the driveway every morning in my bathrobe, but I don't think I could live without having a newspaper to read over breakfast. Maybe because I've been doing it ever since I learned to read, more or less.
Many people now, I suppose, have convinced themselves that a dose of cable news, an occasional perusal of a news digester site, and reading a blog written by somebody who always confirms what they already believe, is a substitute for knowing about what is going on in the world. The result is, well, what we've got now. Hell, it's "free," so it must be good.
I would possibly pay $10 per year, if I bought an iPad, which I probably won't.
That's just it. It will be a challenge to get people to pay for online information they could get off of a blog, RSS or the free version via Safari. The market for subscriber supported e-newspapers and magazines is not quite there yet.
Also, something no one has adequately addressed yet... what the heck are they going to do with the flyers and coupons? The coupons alone often made the Sunday paper a worthwhile investment (I'm not referring to the NYT, in particular).
The Times online edition is a national and international news source read all around the world. The so called print edition people reach only a fraction of the audience with their paper product. If they think they can amortize their cost of nineteenth century industrial production of the printed paper by charging the same for the simple act of elecgronic downloading, then they're truly nuts and out of touch. It doesn't take much in the online world for people to close the tab or window and turn elsewhere. They'll learn this lesson at their peril if they listen to the failing print side of their operation and try to milk the online, most of which is outside the New York area.
To have news, you must have reporters.. to have reporters you must pay them. If people quit paying for news... who will report it?.
Radio and TV staff get paid, but I don't pay directly for their specific content. They find other revenue streams. I'm sure as hell not going to pay for online content.
What is obsolete is the method of delivery of newspapers. Newsprint on the driveway is nearly over. I hope the newspapers find a formula that works for the 21st century, ....
I had a paper route as a kid. But those were more innocent times. Liability, subscription management, billing, sales tax, etc. among other issues has turned driveway delivery into a high school drop out occupation.
Back then our family also read the paper and discussed the news of the day. Average people today just don't read that much. They get their news from the MSN home page and the television.
That is going to be the big challenge for the the newspapers going forward even on the iPad. The iPad may be a big hit as a family computing device but I doubt it will save the newspapers.
Journalism is so fragmented today. The business model of world news, politics, finance, sports, classifieds, and local interest is difficult to house under one roof any longer. We are in an age of specialization and newspapers have to adapt to that trend as well. The NYT is quickly becoming a dinosaur.
I do still get the WSJ delivered to my office but I rarely find time to read it. Of course most of the time they toss it in the bushes or across the way on the neighbor's walkway.
Interesting views. I'm from the UK and the printed media here is still well funded and very powerful. I currently pay $24 a month for my daily broadsheet. I'd happily pay $20 for an electronic version. Ultimately, you get what you pay for. Free news is free for a reason.
If there's no money to be made in written journalism then the only players left will be those in it to push an agenda.
Why are people quite happy to drop £x for an ipad, but then want to pay peanuts for their content? It's the content that adds value to an ipad, so it should be that the one off cost for the ipad is less, and the content more. However, I doubt that opinion will get much support here since it seems a lot of people prefer to line SJs pockets than the pockets of the content providers. Ultra cheap content with razor thin margins is NOT the way to build and develope a business. Just about everyone in here shouldagree with and support that unless you wish to appear hypocritical!
I definetly will pay for mag and newspaper subscriptions - I dont want them to get completely depending on the companies that pay for the adds - it is bad enough already if you ask me.
But for sure not 30$ a month.
Newspapers and such are in a bad situation these days:
They are within a transition phase:
They are able to deliver their content electronically - but they also have to provide it traditionally - for that reason they have the distribution costs for both ways.
But: I think they have to understand that prolonging the time where they have to provide their content traditionally will do them no good. They surely should encourage the new ways of distribution.
That said: for a well composed news App I will gladly pay 10$.
But for me it makes no sence to support a newspaper who misses the point where there business is obviously going.
10$ yes; 20$+ no
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
A new report citing an anonymous source suggests officials within The New York Times cannot agree whether to charge $10 per month or closer to $30 per month for a subscription to one of the world's most prominent newspapers.
The dispute, according to Gawker's unnamed source, lies between those with the company's print division, who view the iPad as "just another way to distribute the paper," and its digital operation, which would prefer to take a different, less expensive approach.
The source claims that those on the print side would like to see users charged between $20 and $30 per month to have the daily edition of the Times delivered to their iPad. Those with the company are allegedly "afraid people will cancel the print paper if they can get the same thing on their iPad," the report said.
On the other hand, those with the digital side of the Times would rather see users be charged about $10 per month for the iPad edition. The report alleged that those in the electronic business are "up in arms over print circulation's pricing."
The report also claims that New York Times Media Group president Scott Heekin-Canedy falls on the side of the print division, favoring pricing between $20 and $30.
"The internal fight might also determine how relevant -- and profitable -- the nation's most prominent newspaper can remain in the digital future," Gawker's Ryan Tate wrote. "Which is probably why there's reportedly so much sniping over who gets to control the iPad edition internally."
The news follows another recent report that some publishers are skeptical of Apple's iPad business model, which sees the company giving 70 percent of revenue to content providers, but not sharing any personal information about subscribers. Those in the publishing world, particularly in newspapers, view that information -- called "their most valuable asset" -- as crucial for selling advertising.
The Times played a significant role in Apple's introduction of its iPad, with company co-founder Steve Jobs browsing the official Web site when the hardware was unveiled. Later in the keynote, officials from the newspaper also demonstrated a daily iPad edition of the Times that will be available for download on the forthcoming device. No price for the subscription was given.
The Times Web site is also prominently featured in promotional videos demonstrating the iPad on Apple's Web site.
Days after it was unveiled, Jobs reportedly made a trip to New York City to meet with Times executives and pitch Apple's new hardware. It was said that Jobs demonstrated the iPad's functionality at the head of a restaurant table in what was said to be an "intimate, family-style gathering."
QUOTE=wizard69;1573919]Outlandish you say. Not at all, especially for an electronic edition. The average news paper is hardly worth more than a dime a day, the NYT might be worth a bit more but hardly more than a quarter.
This isn't really about editorial content but rather the reality that news is a 24 hour a day business, since the advent of cable TV and then the web. So one element here is that the NEWS in Newspaper is no longer important as by definition it is always old news. So if the papers of tomorrow seriously want to be in the news business they need to deliver the news 24 hours a day. That is not impossible but takes a total change in the mind set of a paper.
In many ways the news is not journalism. That may shock many but think about it, the news is about the events and activities that make up our days. Journalism, especially investigative journalism is another beast altogether. It is the search for truths, opinions and other elements of a story to inform the community in general. In other words news is really a passive thing where as journalism is a more engaging activity. In order to compete a "newspaper" needs to compete on both fronts to give people a reason to spend their time with the distribution.
Sadly I don't really think that newspapers in general get it yet. One of the primary reasons for their existence has vanished to more timely and diverse mediums. As the electronic forms gather an ability to cover local scenes and actually employ reporters the dead tree based businesses will slowly wither away. Think about a world where Google, Yahoo or Bing employed reporters to compete directly with the likes of the NYT. Or for that matter Apple starting up a news bureau to work in conjunction with that massive data center they are building. Mind you these organizations would not be hiring people to report the news (which they already to effectively baring Apple) but rather to engage in true journalism. I don't know about you guys but the papers just don't get it.
Comments
At $30/mo it's dead. Monty Python time. Slid down the curtain of life. Snuffed it. Pushin' up the daisies.
About $60 - $75 per year is workable. Monthly a bit more of course.
Wow. You're so much better than the average person.
Consider, just for a moment, that he might be right.
Why would I pay for a digital subscription when it is all availabloe on the 'web for free?
Because if nobody pays for it, professionally researched and reported news will disappear. In its place we will get pseudo-news that is basically gossip, hearsay, and an unhealthy helping of opinion. Yes, even in the news business, you get what you pay for.
Yes, I am sure that there is a lot of "sturm and drang" going on at the Times. There is wailing and gnashing of teeth at EVERY newspaper and magazine being published. Printed material, especially news-related, is on a downhill skid. So what better screen to put up about "publishers being concerned about the impact of the iPad on online literature and bookselling." Makes a good cover story.
I didn't see one damned article about Amazon's e-books being the demise of physical book printing. No, but the minute Steve Jobs says that the iPad will have an e-reader function for the likes of NYT and the iBook store, the storm of venom started to flow. I have been reading a lot of blogs on tech sites in the past few months and I see interesting trends.
The trends are that non-Apple writers (i.e.: those who haven't used an Apple product since the Apple IIe in grade school,) are now suddenly Apple and Mac experts and know EXACTLY what is wrong with the iPad. One techinoblogger actually was stupid enough to make the statement that "the iPad is destined to fail because it cannot run Windows 7." WTF???
That is like saying the reason GM is struggling financially is because they can't use Ford motor parts. It is insane. But I see dozens of articles each day with a subtle underlying message... "Apple will fail" "Steve Jobs is a monster" "iPhones are of the devil." None of this true but the writers keep singing the negative song about all things Apple. Even some of the writers on this so-called Apple insider site write with such venom towards everything that Apple says, or does not say. If Apple doesn't say what these critics want to hear, they say there must be something Apple and the evil Jobs are hiding. And then they quote some unnamed source on some obscure blog, or some inside source close to one of the manufacturing partners in China to verify their point.
But the point is simple. If something is printed online or in print that is not verified by a credible, named source, it is a LIE. Hearsay, innuendo, half truths and myths are not allowed in legal proceedings but they can be sprayed all over so-called journalism. The NYT and all other publications need to worry more about credibility, and not whether people will pay $6, $15 or $30 a month for what they write. Right now, much of what is being written is not worth two cents.
Just for the hell of it, go out and read "news" articles about Apple and the iPad on five different information sources. Look for the facts, and who supposedly stated them. You will find that many of these articles are built on a presupposition, supported by vague projections of half-truths. Many of them have no facts at all nor do they point to real, traceable news sources.
I an not an Apple fan boy but I do think they make superior products to the Wintel computers and smartphones. But if real criticism of Apple and its products is going to be raised, base it on facts and sound philosophy. That is what real journalism is supposed to be. All the rest is just mindless raving.
Newspapers are obsolete. Sorry, they are. The delivery of news is not. I don't watch cable news. I read multiple news source -- very few of which are actually 'news papers'. I read Reuters and AP -- the same source of the majority of 'news' in most news papers. I pay for it by allowing myself to be subjected to advertisements.
This is not about information and ignorance, it is about an industry who's time has past. News will still 'get out'. But newspapers, like most dying industries, are so trapped in their own idiom, and so deep in denial that they are incapable of foresight.
Boutique content shops, either advertiser supported or subscription based are the future. Newspapers are the past.
Ultimately, it is about ignorance. First, the AP and Reuters run only brief stories. Second, they run only brief stories about national or international events. They do not cover local or even regional news. Third, they do zero investigative journalism. I could go on, but the point is, if you are relying on those as sources, then you might as well stick to cable news.
Newsprint may be well on the way towards being obsolete, but if as you insist, journalism itself is obsolete, then a lot of things are also obsolete. Like for instance, democracy.
The reason news content has been free is that it was subsidized by print or broadcast operations, and those aren't cutting the mustard any more. So guess what: It's time to start paying for information that costs money to collect, report, edit, and package. On the other hand, expecting readers to pay the same as print delivery when there are no newsprint, trucking, or associated personnel costs involved is ridiculous.
News content has never been free. Up till now, it was supported by the people who felt a need to know things.
Used to get Time and Newsweek and still get our local paper, the AZ republic.
Have subscriptions to MacWorld, Foreign Affairs, AZ Highways, Runner's World, Sail, Scuba, Skiing, Food & Wine, Tennis and Soaring Magazines.
I would pay $30 a month for all the above, rather like cable....but not $30 just for the NYT...Sorry!
As a previous poster said, 'Dear Publishers.....it's 2010!'
This. They bitch that newspaper quality ahs gone done then bitch that they get the same news for free. I only wish NYTimes wouldn't have stated their site is free until 2011.
I think a good model would be to give their loyal print subscribers access to the e-version for free. This will help maintain these customers which could be a problem as each drop will push distribution costs to every other account.
After that marketing will require bean counters but if they are still going to give away their website have to lessen the cost for the e-version, even if they make it as compelling as the print version. I would liked to see a newspaper and magazine section built into the iBook app. I don't want a separate app for each subscription with a separate login and account. I will be more likely to buy more if I can just use my iTS account. I'd also like it to auto-load so when I pick it up it's there waiting for me, like being delivered to my door. I don't want to have to go grab it first.
Overall, I'm disappointed that the focus on making a viable replacement for print media has not been thought out. It's the one thing that could have made the iPad a must have and potentially save publishers still dedicated to quality writing.
What amazes -- no, actually depresses me, is the attitude that everything should be free or not at all. Where did this attitude come from, I wonder? I have some theories, but I honestly wish I didn't.
If the newspapers I read daily were automatically delivered digitally to my iPad every morning, with the same content as the newsprint versions I've been reading for years, then I'd pay for that. I'm not sure I'd pay as much as I'm paying for the newsprint version ($10 a week, for the LA Times), but I'd have to see how it looked and felt to read. I think I could learn to live without the newsprint, and I could certainly learn to live without the trip down the driveway every morning in my bathrobe, but I don't think I could live without having a newspaper to read over breakfast. Maybe because I've been doing it ever since I learned to read, more or less.
Many people now, I suppose, have convinced themselves that a dose of cable news, an occasional perusal of a news digester site, and reading a blog written by somebody who always confirms what they already believe, is a substitute for knowing about what is going on in the world. The result is, well, what we've got now. Hell, it's "free," so it must be good.
I would possibly pay $10 per year, if I bought an iPad, which I probably won't.
That's just it. It will be a challenge to get people to pay for online information they could get off of a blog, RSS or the free version via Safari. The market for subscriber supported e-newspapers and magazines is not quite there yet.
Also, something no one has adequately addressed yet... what the heck are they going to do with the flyers and coupons? The coupons alone often made the Sunday paper a worthwhile investment (I'm not referring to the NYT, in particular).
Why would I pay for a digital subscription when it is all availabloe on the 'web for free?
:
I have a hard time believing someone who actually reads the paper would ask this type of question.
Even more to the point, a lot of people have a hard time believing that anyone actually reads newspapers.
To have news, you must have reporters.. to have reporters you must pay them. If people quit paying for news... who will report it?.
Radio and TV staff get paid, but I don't pay directly for their specific content. They find other revenue streams. I'm sure as hell not going to pay for online content.
What is obsolete is the method of delivery of newspapers. Newsprint on the driveway is nearly over. I hope the newspapers find a formula that works for the 21st century, ....
I had a paper route as a kid. But those were more innocent times. Liability, subscription management, billing, sales tax, etc. among other issues has turned driveway delivery into a high school drop out occupation.
Back then our family also read the paper and discussed the news of the day. Average people today just don't read that much. They get their news from the MSN home page and the television.
That is going to be the big challenge for the the newspapers going forward even on the iPad. The iPad may be a big hit as a family computing device but I doubt it will save the newspapers.
Journalism is so fragmented today. The business model of world news, politics, finance, sports, classifieds, and local interest is difficult to house under one roof any longer. We are in an age of specialization and newspapers have to adapt to that trend as well. The NYT is quickly becoming a dinosaur.
I do still get the WSJ delivered to my office but I rarely find time to read it. Of course most of the time they toss it in the bushes or across the way on the neighbor's walkway.
If there's no money to be made in written journalism then the only players left will be those in it to push an agenda.
But for sure not 30$ a month.
Newspapers and such are in a bad situation these days:
They are within a transition phase:
They are able to deliver their content electronically - but they also have to provide it traditionally - for that reason they have the distribution costs for both ways.
But: I think they have to understand that prolonging the time where they have to provide their content traditionally will do them no good. They surely should encourage the new ways of distribution.
That said: for a well composed news App I will gladly pay 10$.
But for me it makes no sence to support a newspaper who misses the point where there business is obviously going.
10$ yes; 20$+ no
A new report citing an anonymous source suggests officials within The New York Times cannot agree whether to charge $10 per month or closer to $30 per month for a subscription to one of the world's most prominent newspapers.
The dispute, according to Gawker's unnamed source, lies between those with the company's print division, who view the iPad as "just another way to distribute the paper," and its digital operation, which would prefer to take a different, less expensive approach.
The source claims that those on the print side would like to see users charged between $20 and $30 per month to have the daily edition of the Times delivered to their iPad. Those with the company are allegedly "afraid people will cancel the print paper if they can get the same thing on their iPad," the report said.
On the other hand, those with the digital side of the Times would rather see users be charged about $10 per month for the iPad edition. The report alleged that those in the electronic business are "up in arms over print circulation's pricing."
The report also claims that New York Times Media Group president Scott Heekin-Canedy falls on the side of the print division, favoring pricing between $20 and $30.
"The internal fight might also determine how relevant -- and profitable -- the nation's most prominent newspaper can remain in the digital future," Gawker's Ryan Tate wrote. "Which is probably why there's reportedly so much sniping over who gets to control the iPad edition internally."
The news follows another recent report that some publishers are skeptical of Apple's iPad business model, which sees the company giving 70 percent of revenue to content providers, but not sharing any personal information about subscribers. Those in the publishing world, particularly in newspapers, view that information -- called "their most valuable asset" -- as crucial for selling advertising.
The Times played a significant role in Apple's introduction of its iPad, with company co-founder Steve Jobs browsing the official Web site when the hardware was unveiled. Later in the keynote, officials from the newspaper also demonstrated a daily iPad edition of the Times that will be available for download on the forthcoming device. No price for the subscription was given.
The Times Web site is also prominently featured in promotional videos demonstrating the iPad on Apple's Web site.
Days after it was unveiled, Jobs reportedly made a trip to New York City to meet with Times executives and pitch Apple's new hardware. It was said that Jobs demonstrated the iPad's functionality at the head of a restaurant table in what was said to be an "intimate, family-style gathering."
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
QUOTE=wizard69;1573919]Outlandish you say. Not at all, especially for an electronic edition. The average news paper is hardly worth more than a dime a day, the NYT might be worth a bit more but hardly more than a quarter.
This isn't really about editorial content but rather the reality that news is a 24 hour a day business, since the advent of cable TV and then the web. So one element here is that the NEWS in Newspaper is no longer important as by definition it is always old news. So if the papers of tomorrow seriously want to be in the news business they need to deliver the news 24 hours a day. That is not impossible but takes a total change in the mind set of a paper.
In many ways the news is not journalism. That may shock many but think about it, the news is about the events and activities that make up our days. Journalism, especially investigative journalism is another beast altogether. It is the search for truths, opinions and other elements of a story to inform the community in general. In other words news is really a passive thing where as journalism is a more engaging activity. In order to compete a "newspaper" needs to compete on both fronts to give people a reason to spend their time with the distribution.
Sadly I don't really think that newspapers in general get it yet. One of the primary reasons for their existence has vanished to more timely and diverse mediums. As the electronic forms gather an ability to cover local scenes and actually employ reporters the dead tree based businesses will slowly wither away. Think about a world where Google, Yahoo or Bing employed reporters to compete directly with the likes of the NYT. Or for that matter Apple starting up a news bureau to work in conjunction with that massive data center they are building. Mind you these organizations would not be hiring people to report the news (which they already to effectively baring Apple) but rather to engage in true journalism. I don't know about you guys but the papers just don't get it.
Dave[/QUOTE]