I can see the attraction to some of an all you can eat service, but I think such things are likely in the end destructive.
One of the reasons I do not use a rental/subscription music service is that artists are not adequately compensated for the content they provide. Peter Frampton famously testified to Congress about how he got like $1500 for well over 50 million plays of a popular song he wrote and performed- meaning that that pitiful amount was both the composer and performer share. Artists should get fair compensation and no service I know of pays anything like an adequate amount of money to composers or performers.
We should also take note that Netflix on the movie /tv side has yet to make a nickel on it’s service. People whine about Tesla’s endless unprofitability, but many internet darlings like Uber and Netflox are in that club. As a shareholder, I am not sure that chasing that car is good for Apple and those of us invested in it.
On the news side, operating a large worldwide gathering organization with researchers, editors and such costs significant money. With few exceptions, many city papers are just taking the AP news feed on national and international news instead of original stuff. This means a lack of eyeballs on what is happening in government, in business and for other coverage that requires geographic reach and resources and that does not serve democracy regardless of your personal viewpoint.
I take my news intake seriously and spend more than a little on subscriptions to support sources that are doing original reporting. Bloomberg, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Economist and others get my support because they largely do their own work and do not rely on the wire service feed. I am not knocking AP or Reuters, but they were never designed to provide the majority of content and their one voice gets amplified enough as it is. I seriously doubt that what Apple would be willing to pay these organizations would be adequate to sustain quality reporting.
The New York Times was in a death spiral prior to making the paywall work. The company had been selling off highly valuable assets acquired over decades just to support the paper while simultaneously laying off or buying out massive numbers of highly qualified, top flight reporters, researchers, editors and others. They also took in outside investors that they otherwise likely would not have to keep the doors open during the difficult transition. It is only in the last 2-3 years of the internet age that the paper has stabilized and grown after finding a moderately profitable business model and after a long season of cutbacks they are growing and adding content.
An an old famous saying is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Ultimately someone has to pay for it, and that is true of music, movies, television, magazines and newspapers/news services. I would rather pay more and get more than pay less and get the online equivalent of “rip and read” news. The pitiful compensation schemes seen to date are not going to sustain anything of value long term.
Pardon the length, but this is important. Little d democracy does not work well without a well informed populace/citizenry and got journalism takes money and more than a little work, even in the online era. If Apple is willing to take the lead and pay real money for quality content, that might prove good, but if all they plan is to follow by paying pennies for what took Dollars to create- no thank you.
You make a strong case. But a serious hole in it is your lack of justification for advocating "large worldwide gathering organization with researchers, editors" instead of subscription services like AP or Reuters.
Are you proposing that every newspaper send reporters and photographers/cameramen to cover every story -- or even most of them?
While that would be nice -- it is, as you point out -- very expensive.
Yet, facts are STILL facts. And truth is STILL truth. So, from that perspective, how many news services do we need traveling to Parkland to report on the mass killing there? What does it add?
Well, let me strike that last question.
It adds very little if the service is on news -- which is facts oriented: "This person did this to these people and where, when and how he did it"
Multiple sources are mostly only necessary when "commentary" (which is too often just politically motivated spin) is being added to the facts. (which today is becoming the norm - if not with words then facial expressions, etc...)
It's also helpful in major, complex events such as the hurricane in PuertoRico where it is so big and so complex that multiple eyes looking at different parts of the story contribute too reporting a full and complete story.
I would argue that, for most cases, a few subscription services reporting facts and truth -- without commentary/spin -- would suffice for the vast majority of news stories. And often, not just suffice but improve the quality of reporting. (I'll take a Walter Chonkite over any cable news talking head mixing fact and opinion)
Comments