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.
So you see news organizations as charitable organizations? And a subscription as a contribution to a worthy cause?
Rupert Murdoch would love you. He is one of the richest men in the world.
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.
That is why I don't rely on any one parochial source. I read the NYT, the Washington Post, LA Times, and hundreds more.
For free. They are all on the 'web, aggregated by Google News.
When I want perspective on a mideast bombing, I read both the Jerusalem Post and Al Jazeera. Domestic political news? NYT and the Washington Post. Tech news? I like San Jose Mercury News and NYT and WSJ.
All for "free". Right now. Updated and current.
IMO, subscribing to one source of news is inferior to reading 4,000 different sources.
Spoken like someone who has never read a paper. Journalism, as it is done by good journalists in newspapers, is much more in depth than the sound bites and headlines one gets from CNN and the likes.
If you try to get all of your information from TV or the headlines you find online, you will be sorely uninformed or worse, misinformed.
Newspapers provide a depth and balance which is impossible given the time constraints of TV and radio.
Newspapers also allow the reader the opportunity to pause and consider what is being said, reread what doesn't sink in, and review the total article in a thoughtful manor.
This is to say nothing of the shear art of journalism. A well written article is a pleasure to read, as apposed to most of the trivial BS one gets from other sources.
If the NYT actually was what you describe, then I would pay $30 per month. But all too often it falls far short of your very impressive description. I am an economist and a computer technology enthusiast, so those are the two areas where I have some expertise. Frequently I will read articles in the NYT that expose serious, fundamental misconceptions on the part of the writer. Particularly in the case of economics, I think these misconceptions are actually dangerous and make people (and society as a whole) worse off than they would have been if the article never existed. The brightest spots are actually in some of the blogs that are written by actual experts in their fields. When you have a nobel laureate writing about economics -- that's pretty darned useful. If every article in the NY Times were written by an expert in the relevant field instead of some half-informed former journalism student, then I'd pay.
If newspapers give up on the ability to pay good journalists to properly investigate and report, we're doomed as a society.
I completely agree with you here - democracy only works if there is good quality journalism prepared and able to investigate what the politicians are upto. Conversely, democracy struggles as it is in the US now, where little is able to get done because politicians are too worried about the soundbite and short term journalism of cable news.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
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.
The news sources caused this themselves in many respects. When the web came along, they all assumed that they had to be on the internet and they would figure out how to make money later. Now the genie is out of the bottle, they can't get it back in again. Furthermore, people are becoming as willing to accept things that will remain free, such as blogs, as opposed to valuing quality writing. I agree, it's depressing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka
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.
Indeed you don't, but with the exception of something like the BBC, which is paid for via a sort of tax, you pay for radio and TV news in the form of slanted journalism that has to meet the requirements of key advertisers.
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.
You know what. I wrote a long fairly reasoned response. And deleted it. There is no point. You are either too emotionally or financially invested in the current state of journalism to realize that the model is dying.
As for your assertion that 'newspapers = journalism = democracy' is false. The free exchange of information, opinions and ideas is important to democracy. The world of controlled editorial bias enforced on news rooms by the OWNERS of those newspaper is patently not part of democracy.
If the NYT actually was what you describe, then I would pay $30 per month. But all too often it falls far short of your very impressive description. I am an economist and a computer technology enthusiast, so those are the two areas where I have some expertise. Frequently I will read articles in the NYT that expose serious, fundamental misconceptions on the part of the writer. Particularly in the case of economics, I think these misconceptions are actually dangerous and make people (and society as a whole) worse off than they would have been if the article never existed. The brightest spots are actually in some of the blogs that are written by actual experts in their fields. When you have a nobel laureate writing about economics -- that's pretty darned useful. If every article in the NY Times were written by an expert in the relevant field instead of some half-informed former journalism student, then I'd pay.
You sir, are my hero :-) (I'm a Computer Technology professional and economics enthusiast).
You have hit the nail on the head. I respect good journalism when I find it. The lack of good journalism has made me a news grazer - going from source to source to try and distill the truth out of misconception, misinformation and editorial bias.
IMO - this is not about 'free vs. paid'. This is about the evolution of the information 'market'. In the beginning, Newspapers had a near monopoly, then the market began to fragment with news magazines, radio, television and now the internet all threatening the market incumbent. The Newsprint segment needs to either embrace and adapt to new distribution channels, or they will suffer the fate of all industries that do not adjust to changing market conditions.
Currently, I pay for the distribution channel (my internet connection). I would gladly pay for thoughtful, insightful, and trustworthy content.
The guy basically rebuilt Safari in Xcode since its all included just to demo it, and he shows both the very Cool Open Window Page, and the Bookmark Bar! Yes the Bookmark Bar appears under the address bar if you touch it.
This has to be one of the first NEW features in the iPad Safari that is not found on the iPhone. Good to know.
The lack of good journalism has made me a news grazer - going from source to source to try and distill the truth out of misconception, misinformation and editorial bias.
I agree. I will often read the same story in a number of different publications, noting the similarities and the differences.
For example, I often read a story in the NYT, and then check out the same story in the Jerusalem Post and Al Jazeera. The differences are often illuminating.
I don't understand restricting myself to any single source of news. IMO, Google News is a great way to have thousands of newspaper subscriptions, all updated many times a day.
Apparently some people actually enjoy ignorance. They say newspapers are obsolete, but then most of the news they read online "for free," assuming they even bother, comes from that very source. And please, don't try to tell me that cable news is a substitute for written journalism, because then I will know beyond a doubt that you enjoy ignorance. Cable news cultivates ignorance.
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, so at least those of us who'd prefer not to wallow in ignorance will have something better than the shouted headlines of cable news. If it's done right, I will gladly pay. Ignorance is just too expensive.
Cable news isn't news at all. It's mostly advertising and propaganda.
Written Journalism, I'm sorry to say, is on it's way to being exactly that. They way the NYTimes advocates the illegal activity going on in the white house is more than enough evidence of that.
The reason digital is cheaper is because you don't have the charges related to print. People expect the savings to be passed down. If they charge $30 a month i give them a few years befor they go under. Sad to think of the New York Times gong out of business but it's the sign of the times.
I might pay for news on the iPad if all news on the internet that was free went away.
If all free online news did go away, I'd just go back to watching the 6 o'clock news. Eff 'em. They're not getting any of my money.
If all free news on the internet goes away, I recommend that you stop connecting to the internet from firewalls in China -and/or- open your own news website.
The free exchange of information, opinions and ideas is important to democracy. The world of controlled editorial bias enforced on news rooms by the OWNERS of those newspaper is patently not part of democracy.
I have to respectively disagree, 'in part'.
As defined, "Journalism is the craft of conveying news, descriptive material and opinion via a widening spectrum of media. These include newspapers, magazines, radio and television, the internet and even, more recently, the mobile phone. "
Notice that this definition does not include 'blogging'. Thank goodness.
Whether or not editorial is controlled by owners or anyone else is in-material in a democracy. 'You always have a choice'. Unfortunately, not many people 'read' the 'other' sides points of view. Such is evidenced by the unwavering partisanism seen in the political arena in virtually all so-called democratic countries where the majority of government decisions are made based on pure ignorance and stupidity.
I find it unbelievable the ignorance displayed here. Stricking down the messenger service, i.e., newspapers, for the sake of the 'free' internet and worse, bloggers, is pure stupidity. The original source is created by journalists. Some are learned, other just plain idiots. The same journalists create all the other vehicles used to deliver the news.
How the message is delivered is only a means of convenience to the reader. Relying on a single source or one that satisfies a reader's outlook is simply-minded. That is the killer of democracy.
A couple of years ago on Jaywalking, it was asked, 'what is so special about today, i.e., June 14th. When they had to be told what Day it was, nobody could say what, where, when or how it came to be so special. Everyone that is, except a girl from Vancouver, Canada. Apparently, she had read it in one of the Canadian newspapers on her flight down to LA.
Part of the problem is that New Yorkers have a skewed view on life. The cost of living there is exorbitant. To them maybe $30 a month seems reasonable. Well, they need to step outside their big apple bubble and realize that to most people that is just too much money to pay. From reading these posts and thinking about what I would pay, I have to say that $5 is the right price. Tiered pricing would make the most sense though. Many would pay a little extra for archive access or for the Sunday puzzle. They could charge a la carte for those extras or as monthly add ons. There are all kinds of possibilities. They just are not being very creative in their thinking. They are being driven by fear instead of the excitement of salvation and innovation.
I know that this could not happen for a few years due to their lack of trust and incompetence, but I would like to see subscription packages available in the iPad iTunes section. You pay $30 a month and get 4 monthly subscriptions of your choice. There could be different tiered packages.
There are lots of very creative ways to do this. They just need to get their heads out of their...
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.
All advertisers need to know is that the ad will appear on the iPad. nuff said.
Apple customers have more disposable income, are better educated and exactly what most advertisers are looking for.
A couple of years ago on Jaywalking, it was asked, 'what is so special about today, i.e., June 14th. When they had to be told what Day it was, nobody could say what, where, when or how it came to be so special. Everyone that is, except a girl from Vancouver, Canada. Apparently, she had read it in one of the Canadian newspapers on her flight down to LA.
Comments
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.
So you see news organizations as charitable organizations? And a subscription as a contribution to a worthy cause?
Rupert Murdoch would love you. He is one of the richest men in the world.
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.
That is why I don't rely on any one parochial source. I read the NYT, the Washington Post, LA Times, and hundreds more.
For free. They are all on the 'web, aggregated by Google News.
When I want perspective on a mideast bombing, I read both the Jerusalem Post and Al Jazeera. Domestic political news? NYT and the Washington Post. Tech news? I like San Jose Mercury News and NYT and WSJ.
All for "free". Right now. Updated and current.
IMO, subscribing to one source of news is inferior to reading 4,000 different sources.
I have a hard time believing someone who actually reads the paper would ask this type of question.
What you believe is seemingly disconnected from reality.
I read the news, and not the "paper", unless I am going to enjoy a leisurely breakfast in a diner.
Indeed, my home page is Google News. I read newspaper stories all day long. I am a news junkie.
Your beliefs need calibration.
Spoken like someone who has never read a paper. Journalism, as it is done by good journalists in newspapers, is much more in depth than the sound bites and headlines one gets from CNN and the likes.
If you try to get all of your information from TV or the headlines you find online, you will be sorely uninformed or worse, misinformed.
Newspapers provide a depth and balance which is impossible given the time constraints of TV and radio.
Newspapers also allow the reader the opportunity to pause and consider what is being said, reread what doesn't sink in, and review the total article in a thoughtful manor.
This is to say nothing of the shear art of journalism. A well written article is a pleasure to read, as apposed to most of the trivial BS one gets from other sources.
If the NYT actually was what you describe, then I would pay $30 per month. But all too often it falls far short of your very impressive description. I am an economist and a computer technology enthusiast, so those are the two areas where I have some expertise. Frequently I will read articles in the NYT that expose serious, fundamental misconceptions on the part of the writer. Particularly in the case of economics, I think these misconceptions are actually dangerous and make people (and society as a whole) worse off than they would have been if the article never existed. The brightest spots are actually in some of the blogs that are written by actual experts in their fields. When you have a nobel laureate writing about economics -- that's pretty darned useful. If every article in the NY Times were written by an expert in the relevant field instead of some half-informed former journalism student, then I'd pay.
If newspapers give up on the ability to pay good journalists to properly investigate and report, we're doomed as a society.
I completely agree with you here - democracy only works if there is good quality journalism prepared and able to investigate what the politicians are upto. Conversely, democracy struggles as it is in the US now, where little is able to get done because politicians are too worried about the soundbite and short term journalism of cable news.
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.
The news sources caused this themselves in many respects. When the web came along, they all assumed that they had to be on the internet and they would figure out how to make money later. Now the genie is out of the bottle, they can't get it back in again. Furthermore, people are becoming as willing to accept things that will remain free, such as blogs, as opposed to valuing quality writing. I agree, it's depressing.
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.
Indeed you don't, but with the exception of something like the BBC, which is paid for via a sort of tax, you pay for radio and TV news in the form of slanted journalism that has to meet the requirements of key advertisers.
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.
You know what. I wrote a long fairly reasoned response. And deleted it. There is no point. You are either too emotionally or financially invested in the current state of journalism to realize that the model is dying.
As for your assertion that 'newspapers = journalism = democracy' is false. The free exchange of information, opinions and ideas is important to democracy. The world of controlled editorial bias enforced on news rooms by the OWNERS of those newspaper is patently not part of democracy.
If the NYT actually was what you describe, then I would pay $30 per month. But all too often it falls far short of your very impressive description. I am an economist and a computer technology enthusiast, so those are the two areas where I have some expertise. Frequently I will read articles in the NYT that expose serious, fundamental misconceptions on the part of the writer. Particularly in the case of economics, I think these misconceptions are actually dangerous and make people (and society as a whole) worse off than they would have been if the article never existed. The brightest spots are actually in some of the blogs that are written by actual experts in their fields. When you have a nobel laureate writing about economics -- that's pretty darned useful. If every article in the NY Times were written by an expert in the relevant field instead of some half-informed former journalism student, then I'd pay.
You sir, are my hero :-) (I'm a Computer Technology professional and economics enthusiast).
You have hit the nail on the head. I respect good journalism when I find it. The lack of good journalism has made me a news grazer - going from source to source to try and distill the truth out of misconception, misinformation and editorial bias.
IMO - this is not about 'free vs. paid'. This is about the evolution of the information 'market'. In the beginning, Newspapers had a near monopoly, then the market began to fragment with news magazines, radio, television and now the internet all threatening the market incumbent. The Newsprint segment needs to either embrace and adapt to new distribution channels, or they will suffer the fate of all industries that do not adjust to changing market conditions.
Currently, I pay for the distribution channel (my internet connection). I would gladly pay for thoughtful, insightful, and trustworthy content.
The guy basically rebuilt Safari in Xcode since its all included just to demo it, and he shows both the very Cool Open Window Page, and the Bookmark Bar! Yes the Bookmark Bar appears under the address bar if you touch it.
This has to be one of the first NEW features in the iPad Safari that is not found on the iPhone. Good to know.
Heck, I am already getting beaten down with monthly payments and fees for this and that.
I am sure the NYT has one of the highest subscription prices around but damn.
$10 tops. Thats even pushing the envelope.
The lack of good journalism has made me a news grazer - going from source to source to try and distill the truth out of misconception, misinformation and editorial bias.
I agree. I will often read the same story in a number of different publications, noting the similarities and the differences.
For example, I often read a story in the NYT, and then check out the same story in the Jerusalem Post and Al Jazeera. The differences are often illuminating.
I don't understand restricting myself to any single source of news. IMO, Google News is a great way to have thousands of newspaper subscriptions, all updated many times a day.
Apparently some people actually enjoy ignorance. They say newspapers are obsolete, but then most of the news they read online "for free," assuming they even bother, comes from that very source. And please, don't try to tell me that cable news is a substitute for written journalism, because then I will know beyond a doubt that you enjoy ignorance. Cable news cultivates ignorance.
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, so at least those of us who'd prefer not to wallow in ignorance will have something better than the shouted headlines of cable news. If it's done right, I will gladly pay. Ignorance is just too expensive.
Cable news isn't news at all. It's mostly advertising and propaganda.
Written Journalism, I'm sorry to say, is on it's way to being exactly that. They way the NYTimes advocates the illegal activity going on in the white house is more than enough evidence of that.
Stuck dinos, old media will resist howling and screeching as they die.
New species will take over.
Evolution 101. The time is Now.
I might pay for news on the iPad if all news on the internet that was free went away.
If all free online news did go away, I'd just go back to watching the 6 o'clock news. Eff 'em. They're not getting any of my money.
If all free news on the internet goes away, I recommend that you stop connecting to the internet from firewalls in China -and/or- open your own news website.
The free exchange of information, opinions and ideas is important to democracy. The world of controlled editorial bias enforced on news rooms by the OWNERS of those newspaper is patently not part of democracy.
I have to respectively disagree, 'in part'.
As defined, "Journalism is the craft of conveying news, descriptive material and opinion via a widening spectrum of media. These include newspapers, magazines, radio and television, the internet and even, more recently, the mobile phone. "
Notice that this definition does not include 'blogging'. Thank goodness.
Whether or not editorial is controlled by owners or anyone else is in-material in a democracy. 'You always have a choice'. Unfortunately, not many people 'read' the 'other' sides points of view. Such is evidenced by the unwavering partisanism seen in the political arena in virtually all so-called democratic countries where the majority of government decisions are made based on pure ignorance and stupidity.
I find it unbelievable the ignorance displayed here. Stricking down the messenger service, i.e., newspapers, for the sake of the 'free' internet and worse, bloggers, is pure stupidity. The original source is created by journalists. Some are learned, other just plain idiots. The same journalists create all the other vehicles used to deliver the news.
How the message is delivered is only a means of convenience to the reader. Relying on a single source or one that satisfies a reader's outlook is simply-minded. That is the killer of democracy.
A couple of years ago on Jaywalking, it was asked, 'what is so special about today, i.e., June 14th. When they had to be told what Day it was, nobody could say what, where, when or how it came to be so special. Everyone that is, except a girl from Vancouver, Canada. Apparently, she had read it in one of the Canadian newspapers on her flight down to LA.
I know that this could not happen for a few years due to their lack of trust and incompetence, but I would like to see subscription packages available in the iPad iTunes section. You pay $30 a month and get 4 monthly subscriptions of your choice. There could be different tiered packages.
There are lots of very creative ways to do this. They just need to get their heads out of their...
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.
All advertisers need to know is that the ad will appear on the iPad. nuff said.
Apple customers have more disposable income, are better educated and exactly what most advertisers are looking for.
If they are better educated, why would they read the Times?
Apple customers have more disposable income, are better educated and exactly what most advertisers are looking for.
If they are better educated, why would they read the Times?[/QUOTE]
Bingo!
A couple of years ago on Jaywalking, it was asked, 'what is so special about today, i.e., June 14th. When they had to be told what Day it was, nobody could say what, where, when or how it came to be so special. Everyone that is, except a girl from Vancouver, Canada. Apparently, she had read it in one of the Canadian newspapers on her flight down to LA.
Are you referring to Donald Trump's birthday?
Do they celebrate that in Canada?