Murdoch papers to charge for online viewing,

[Greenfish]

It's easy enough to find news online. IF all papers start doing this, people will just use other sources of news.

If that bundle internet thing goes ahead I think we should have a demo against it. I'm serious. I think the internet is the single most progressive thing to have happened in the last 20 years and fucktards like Turdoch shouldn't be allowed near it.

but journalism costs money! the only reason he is probably suggesting it is because there is so little money to be made off of net news. so its impossible to have it both ways, is probably what he means.

its a money problem not a murdoch one, in it.

 

[jæd]

can you imagine what it would be like with no media though? and that's what it will be if the papers fold. because there just isn't the money to fund anything else at the mo.

The "Media" will become more difuse, with lots of little players instead of newspapers and magazines. Its relatively expensive to set things like newspapers and magazines, but easier to setup blogs on your favourite subject. A good model to look at is tech news which are slowly going online and ditching the print edition.

For local news, in the future I would see a return to individual towns having their own online blog newspaper covering news in that town. Since they wouldn't have to (or even need to) rely on Council Notices they could report actual stories, including corruption at the local level.

Right at the moment newspapers like The Times, The Sun are all very top heavy with far too many journalists. They will survive but with large reduction in staff...

 

[Gromit]

It's easy enough to find news online. IF all papers start doing this, people will just use other sources of news.

Some people will. Others will pay for a source they trust or delivers the news in a way they really like. Or covers the topics they like.

The websites running costs are then covered by subscriptions as they only need to resource according to paying customers rather than paying for bandwidth for freeloaders.

I've seen quite a few sites where the first couple of lines of the article is free but to see the whole article you have to be a subscriber. They've been around for a while so it must work for them. They haven't driven all their custom away by charging.

 

[jæd]

but journalism costs money! the only reason he is probably suggesting it is because there is so little money to be made off of net news. so its impossible to have it both ways, is probably what he means.

its a money problem not a murdoch one, in it.

Real journalism includes analysis of whats being reported rather blindly repeating facts. And people (IMO) will pay for good, insightful analysis.

 

[kyser_soze]

Well, aside from our earlier disagreement, I completely agree with jaed's last few posts, especially the bit about trimming the fat...a few less Polly Toynbees on £200K+ salaries, and more actual reporters earning £30K...

 

[Greenfish]

well said kyser. that mob should be the first to go. i don't think i've ever really got anything decent from toynbee et al.

 

[kyser_soze]

If you work on the (likely) assumption that the top 10 columnists/journos on a national are on £100K+ apiece, it's easy to see where cost savings could be made...

 

[treelover]

I don't think local newspapers do properly hold local councils to account.

Yes, you might get the odd article inspired by some green ink reader's letter about a pothole in the road that hasn't been filled for three months, or some story originating from the council's nuisance neighbour unit about some kids being given an asbo for playing football in the street or some looney belting out Elvis tunes on a loop at maximum volume 24/7 or something.

Generally speaking, though, local papers tip-toe around the local council, because a lot of their advertising revenues come from... the local council, job adverts, official notices and so on. Local papers don't want to uncover council corruption or failures of duty, because they don't want to p!ss off one of their biggest advertisers.

not sure about that, the Sheffield Star exposed a heck of a lot about the failings of Doncaster Council, childcare, etc.

 

[TylerD]

well said kyser. that mob should be the first to go. i don't think i've ever really got anything decent from toynbee et al.

+1

I can't abide the smugness of people like her lecturing people on being green while jetting every other weekend to her villa in Tuscany either. The Graun seems to be full of tossers like that.

 

[kyser_soze]

I did have a reasonable amount of respect for La Toynbee until she started that whole 'Declare Your Earnings' shit, and when most of CiF and loads of other igh earners said 'You go first then Polly' she bottled it and ran.

And I know I've ranted about this before, but George fucking Monbiot...I've been a believer in AGW since the 1980s, but I can't read his stuff without starting to think 'Maybe the other side have a point about denial'...the list goes on...Barbara Ellen, Glancey, Jenkins...and that's just the Gruaniad!

 

[jæd]

If you work on the (likely) assumption that the top 10 columnists/journos on a national are on £100K+ apiece, it's easy to see where cost savings could be made...

Yup. I would imagine they would have their own blogs separate from the newspapers. If they are any good they should get the readers in.

IMO, more viable business model for The Sun, Times would be ads with a subscription service. You get all the basic news for free but if you want the high quality tits and Problem Page/Features you pay extra. (low quality breasts are free)

The Times would be the same (but without the tits). Informed political analysis would be for subscribers only. (With appropiate free content to draw people in)

 

[elevendayempire]

What I've been hearing is that corporate cunts like Murdoch are planning to stitch up the internet so that ISP customers have to sign up to "packages" of internet access where various types of website are bundled rather like the various Sky bundles.

God, I hope the evil old cunt dies painfully.

 

[stethoscope]

Bumping this as it's now been announced...

"The Times and Sunday Times websites to charge from June"
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article7076987.ece

The Times and The Sunday Times will start charging for their websites from June, it was confirmed today.

News International, the newspapers’ parent company, announced that readers will be offered a day’s use for £1, or £2 for a week’s subscription. Readers who have a seven-day subscription to the print editions will not be charged extra for access to the websites. International pricing has been set at $2/€1.5 a day or $4/€3 for a week.

The two titles will launch new websites in early May, separating their digital presence for the first time and replacing the existing site. There will be a free trial period and payment will allow access to both thetimes.co.uk and thesundaytimes.co.uk.

Rebekah Brooks, chief executive of News International, said: “At a defining moment for journalism, this is a crucial step towards making the business of news an economically exciting proposition. We are proud of our journalism and unashamed to say that we believe it has value.”

In January, the New York Times announced that it would charge some frequent readers for access to its website. The Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal already have adopted online subscription models.

James Harding, editor of The Times, said: “Our new website – with a strong, clean design – will have all the values of the printed paper and all the versatility of digital media. We want people to do more than just read it – to be part of it."

He added: “Thetimes.co.uk will make the most of moving images, dynamic infographics, interactive comment and personalised news feeds. The coming editions of The Times on phones, e-readers, tablets and mobile devices will tell the most important and interesting stories in the newest ways.”

 

[trevhagl]

The Guardian reports that all of the N/I stable including The Times is planning to charge for reading its content online: Is this the beginning of 'pay to view' for all online media, will the Guardian follow suit? Tbh, its been great having the ability to scan all newspapers, I would argue it has helped democracy etc, but is it all over now?

i think thats fantastic, that people will have to PAY to view twat sites

 

[smokedout]

commercial suicide FTW

 

[trevhagl]

what would be even better would be if they put The Sun up to £5

 

[FoxyRed]

This is absolutely stupid and suicidal.

 

[weltweit]

The biggest reason why this will be a problem for them is BBC News Online which will remain free.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

The biggest reason why this will be a problem for them is BBC News Online which will remain free.

Not if Murdoch has any say in the matter. Which he does.

 

[weltweit]

Not if Murdoch has any say in the matter. Which he does.

You think Murdock could cause BBC Online to charge?

 

[kyser_soze]

It's either going to work or it won't. My question is - is this as big a commercial gamble as Sky was in the 1990s? I reckon thye'll find it easier to get people to pay for Sun content than Times - a quick look at the endless promotions for text-in comps, phone votes etc in The Sun should demonstrate that it's readers are happy to pay for interacting with it. I suspect the Times readers won't, however.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

You think Murdock could cause BBC Online to charge?

Not the "free" bit, the "remaining" bit.

 

[cybertect]

Mixed thoughts about this, much as I dislike Murdoch.

This is absolutely stupid and suicidal.

The problem is that print sales are in decline and in the future probably won't support the news gathering that we have today. The US market has been particularly hard hit with quite a few long-established titles closing or being under threat of closure (e.g. San Francisco Chronicle).

If online advertising revenue alone doesn't bring in the cash to make news sites pay their way, then subscription or pay-per-view are the only real alternatives to a long, slow, expensive death, even if it is suicidal.

 

[DotCommunist]

It's either going to work or it won't. My question is - is this as big a commercial gamble as Sky was in the 1990s? I reckon thye'll find it easier to get people to pay for Sun content than Times - a quick look at the endless promotions for text-in comps, phone votes etc in The Sun should demonstrate that it's readers are happy to pay for interacting with it. I suspect the Times readers won't, however.

And to be fair, what can you find in the Times that you can't find (with a slightly stronger r/w bias) in the torygraph or half a dozen other online news providers?

 

[Gromit]

You think Murdock could cause BBC Online to charge?

Well if the rest of the market place became pay per view he could lobby Europe claiming that the Beeb are breaking State Aid rules. By being government funded in a competative market.

 

[kyser_soze]

By being government funded in a competative market.

The BBC isn't funded by government, it's funded via the licence fee, and that's theoretically protected under the same WTO/EU rules as France's cultural quota system. I say theoretically because no-one's challenged it in the EU yet.

 

[stupid dogbot]

I guess they need to make sure that they can continue to fund their superbly appropriately named correspondents...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7065824.ece

 

[weltweit]

The BBC isn't funded by government, it's funded via the licence fee, and that's theoretically protected under the same WTO/EU rules as France's cultural quota system. I say theoretically because no-one's challenged it in the EU yet.

Beat me to it.

Everyone with a television pays for BBC News Online via the Licence Fee.

 

[Gromit]

The BBC isn't funded by government, it's funded via the licence fee, and that's theoretically protected under the same WTO/EU rules as France's cultural quota system. I say theoretically because no-one's challenged it in the EU yet.

Good point. I stand corrected. Just as car tax isn't in fact a tax but a vehicle licence.

Its one of those semantic technicallities. Like when the US say it isn't torture because they changed the definition of torture in their guidelines.

Its still money the government demands with menaces.

 

[DotCommunist]

Then they spend it on big-budget shows like torchwood (set in cardiff, thus employing loads of idle welsh).