Jude 2

It seems to be coming closer and closer to a reality. In my opinion it will not work for main stream news.

Micro$oft is moving it along with talks with Murdock's company. Trying to get one up on Google. Other news companies have joined in also.

Except the BBC

My question is would you pay for you online news?

How can you limit what is happening to only those willing to pay for it? I mean, physically, HOW can you do it? I know that your own content can be restricted to paid delivery and that's fine. But, for every effort to restrict information, there's someone out there willing to provide it. This is an effort to restrict information, not just get paid for it. Make no mistake, this is about lessening the amount of information people receive so they can be controlled as much as it is about financial viability. Rupert Murdoch is certainly no exception to that rule. This is inverse payola. Make people pay for the access and hopefully hold off federal control of internet content. And, the government should be quite satisfied with it should things arrive at a slowdown in the information pipeline for some time while they continue to pump their propaganda through broadcast and blog without charge. The counteraction to that, of course, is a patchwork of blogs and hard news sites that will provide some amount -- perhaps better in quality -- of actual news content. If people pay providers directly for the crapola that passes for news now, then any hope of ever escaping the grip of the powers of the journalist class will be more or less buried.

not a chance in................

no. _IF_ i am going to pay for news, I will get a newspaper, or cable/satellite new channels.

No way it'll ever happen.

Too many blogs, Twitter, independent video producers on YouTube, etc.

There will always be free methods to getting the news, even online. Most local TV stations offer this on their websites. Even if they didn't, they all pretty much broadcast local news OTA for free -- someone will just type that up into a blog and off you go.

You get the idea...

Paully_44 wrote:not a chance in................

Ditto.

http://www.mediaweek.co.uk/news/971194/ ... ILC-SEARCH


"We are allowing our journalism – billions of dollars worth of it every year – to leak onto the internet. We are surrendering our hard-earned rights to the search engines and aggregators, and the out and out thieves of the digital age.

"It is time to pause and recognise this – free costs too much."

***********

These guys need to see our small unscientific poll, eh?

Could it be that just like our Govt.. these guys are living above means? If the money isn't coming in ( from Advertisers ).... figure out why. Could it be CONTENT?? OH No! It's YOUR fault because you are getting it for free instead of paying for it.

It's always amazing to me that it's never "MY [content] FAULT".. but it's always "YOUR FAULT" my business or [ insert agenda here ] isn't doing well.

My ideology is perfect ( across all past present and future time and space ) and you are the problem. You bend to me.


Tip: Like anyone, any business, or any agenda in this world... you have to remain competitive to keep up. If you fail to move, revamp, self examine, determine how to daily become relevant.. then you will perish.

MacUser wrote:Could it be that just like our Govt..

Wow.. didn't expect to be right so fast.

FTC explores future of journalism in Internet age
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

WASHINGTON (AP) - The federal government is wading into deliberations over the future of journalism as printed newspapers, television stations and other traditional media outlets suffer from Americans' growing reliance on the Internet.

With the media business in a state of economic distress as audiences and advertisers migrate online, the Federal Trade Commission began a two-day workshop Tuesday to examine the profound challenges facing media companies and explore ways the government can help them survive.

*******

Again.. do I DARE mention CONTENT!!??? Dare we say that what they are serving up as packaged News is NOT what American's desire to read, listen, or agree with?

Now it's your fault because you don't listen to the [ Insert Govt Propaganda Here ]. Seriously.. If it wasn't the inability to indoctrinate.. why would Govt be interested?

This is amazing to watch unfold.

Murdoch seems to be pushing this but his FOX News channel is a huge success. I don't understand what he's getting at?

Full Quiver wrote:Murdoch seems to be pushing this but his FOX News channel is a huge success. I don't understand what he's getting at?

Journalism and Freedom
Government assistance is a greater threat to the press than any new technology.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 15268.html

We are at a time when many news enterprises are shutting down or scaling back. No doubt you will hear some tell you that journalism is in dire shape, and the triumph of digital is to blame.

My message is just the opposite. The future of journalism is more promising than ever—limited only by editors and producers unwilling to fight for their readers and viewers, or government using its heavy hand either to overregulate or subsidize us.

From the beginning, newspapers have prospered for one reason: the trust that comes from representing their readers' interests and giving them the news that's important to them. That means covering the communities where they live, exposing government or business corruption, and standing up to the rich and powerful.

Technology now allows us to do this on a much greater scale. That means we have the means to reach billions of people who until now have had no honest or independent sources of the information they need to rise in society, hold their governments accountable, and pursue their needs and dreams.

Does this mean we are all going to succeed? Of course not. Some newspapers and news organizations will not adapt to the digital realities of our day—and they will fail. We should not blame technology for these failures. The future of journalism belongs to the bold, and the companies that prosper will be those that find new and better ways to meet the needs of their viewers, listeners, and readers.

First, media companies need to give people the news they want. I can't tell you how many papers I have visited where they have a wall of journalism prizes—and a rapidly declining circulation. This tells me the editors are producing news for themselves—instead of news that is relevant to their customers. A news organization's most important asset is the trust it has with its readers, a bond that reflects the readers' confidence that editors are looking out for their needs and interests.

••••••••••


So it appears the RUPERT MURDOCH and I are on the exact same PAGE on this above topic..

But..

My second point follows from my first: Quality content is not free. In the future, good journalism will depend on the ability of a news organization to attract customers by providing news and information they are willing to pay for.

The old business model based mainly on advertising is dead. Let's face it: A business model that relies primarily on online advertising cannot sustain newspapers over the long term. The reason is simple arithmetic. Though online advertising is increasing, that increase is only a fraction of what is being lost with print advertising.

That's not going to change, even in a boom. The reason is that the old model was founded on quasimonopolies such as classified advertising, which has been decimated by new and cheaper competitors such as Craigslist, Monster.com, and so on.

In the new business model, we will be charging consumers for the news we provide on our Internet sites. The critics say people won't pay. I believe they will, but only if we give them something of good and useful value. Our customers are smart enough to know that you don't get something for nothing.

This is where we part ways with him and I highlight his own words above in RED to show you where people will get their news.. not from PAY sources.. but from reliable FREE sources that don't require such major budgets... from groups that can live within advertising / sponsorship means provided.

We shall see. I wish he could just see our small poll.

I would agree with him, if they give some other content that people cannot get from free sites it may work. Maybe give the news for free, but other connected stories that people are interested in would have to pay.

Not sure how well it will work, most of the interesting stories would make into the free side fairly easy.

Mole_J wrote:I would agree with him, if they give some other content that people cannot get from free sites it may work. Maybe give the news for free, but other connected stories that people are interested in would have to pay.

Not sure how well it will work, most of the interesting stories would make into the free side fairly easy.

I'm actually ok with the entire idea.. just if nobody actually buys it.. and it fails miserably then rethink and not BLAME the customer or seek Govt assistance for a product nobody wants.

His core issue is fair compensation for work... and let me give a prime example of the underpaid... Teachers. They should be making much more imho.. compared to one trick athletic wonders.

How is the Media business any different? They are offering a product/service. If the market is flooded with SOO much news... then the product you offer is in vast supply.

Just as anything in a true free market.. products/services in vast supply are cheap. If your product/service is rare.. then the price increases ( whether via Advertising or Pay means ).

He has to continue to make his product unique, innovative, knowing his audience and thus commanding the higher price. My guess is that this is exactly what he is attempting to do.

Interesting to watch unfold.