Build the Wall Analysis

• Section 1 

I believe that david is comparing both the internet and newspaperss together and discussing and telling us how th internet is free as we are able to get the news through various free websites. however some people still have a habbit of reading the actual 'newspaper' everyday which we know wouldnt get old as newspapers have been out over dozens of years now. It also shows that radical revisiting of the dynamic between newspapering and the Internet, there will be little cohesive, professional, first-generation journalism at the state and local level, as your national newspapers continue to retrench and regional papers are destroyed outright.

• Section 2 

I believe it shows that time is the enemy, however, and the wariness and caution with which the Times and The Post approach the issue reveal not only how slow industry leaders have been to accurately assess the realities, but how vulnerable one national newspaper is to the other. Should the Times go behind a pay curtain while the Post remains free, or vice versa. I believe that from this article it shows that web sites have combined to batter paid print circulation figures, more people are reading the product of America’s newspapers than ever before. Certainly more of them are reading the Times (nearly 20 million average unique visitors monthly) and the Post (more than 10 million monthly unique visitors)

• Section 3 

Section 3 shows 10 percent of the existing 210,000Baltimore Sun readers, for example, who pay a subscription rate less than half the price of home delivery, or roughly $10, would represent about $2.5 million a year. Absent the cost of trucks, gas, paper, and presses, money like that represents the beginnings of a solid revenue stream. 

• Section 4 

Section 4 shows there is a  risk going behind the paywall without local readers getting free national, international, and cultural reporting from the national papers, and having seen that the paid-content formula can work, most metro dailies will follow suit. As they do, they re-emphasize that which makes them unique: local coverage, local culture, local voices—coupled with wire-service offerings from the national papers otherwise available only through paid sites.

1) Disagree

I will never pay for “news” again. Most news is not truly news - it is sensationalism, hype and deception. Most news is not balanced - every editor is biased. And it is not just that - I truly can not afford to pay for news. Academics, especially with tenure, got it made in the shade and may be able to afford to follow the “news” as they are funded and it does not come out of their pockets. The question comes down to this - do we want an informed public or not. The answer, at least right now, is no. If the public were truly properly informed the American people would not allow Wall Street to gut Main Street, would not believe the lies of “the terrorists are going to destroy our way of life” and would understand that it really makes no difference - except in perception - of who holds the title of chief cheerleader - oops I mean Commander in Chief, President, which should be renamed CEO of America Incorporated.

#9 Posted by Lawrence Turner on Fri 17 Jul 2009 at 11:55 AM

2) Agree

Fascinating. What about the big gateway sites, like Yahoo and MSN? I bet a lot of people mostly read their news on Yahoo's home page. Yahoo pays the AP,right? Is there some kind of wholesale deal possible there?

Because people DO pay for the internet. They pay their DSL or their broadband provider, they pay their cell phone bill, they pay for hardware.

I agree that no one in mass media was ready for the fact that the internet broke the advertising business model. I agree that content is valuable, but if its cost was hidden in the advertising revenue stream for so long, is there another place in the online environment that can shoulder that cost, in addition to subscriptions?

#12 Posted by Rob on Fri 17 Jul 2009 at 03:19 PM

3) Agree

If news were not free, there would be enough people willing to pay for it to cover the cost of producing it. But suppose the New York Times suddenly started charging for online access; althought it is a great newspaper, I probably wouldn't pay for it. There are just too many free alternatives that are almost as good. Even if (for example) no other online news source were as good as the Times, the remaining news sources will collectively fill the gap.
The economic parlance, you have goods which are near perfect substitutes. If I can't read Paul Krugman's column, I can go read some other noble prize winning economist's latest available(and accessible) column. Likewise, if I can't read Thomas Freidman, I can get the same kind of hype from a used car lot advertisement.

So I think, maybe, a number of major papers would have to work in concert to significantly degrade the free online news world. In other words - again in economic parlance - they might have to collude.

The news industry needs something like OPEC.

#13 Posted by Raskalnikov on Fri 17 Jul 2009 at 10:22 PM

Finally, what is your own opinion? Do you agree that newspapers need to put online content behind a paywall in order for the journalism industry to survive? Would you be willing to pay for news online? Critical autonomy is the key skill in A2 Media - you need to be able form opinions on these issues.

My opinion is that i wont be willing to pay for the news online because people still read the newspapers and newspapers that are regional get sold by millions each day which show that the industry is making some money out of it however people who use the the internet already want there news to be free on it due to the main fact that they already pay for the internet already and paying for the news online will cause even more problems therefore some people may even stop buying newspapers cause of that.