Posts
Ignore that time stamp above. It’s June 25, 2015. Despite previous proliferation of free online content, newspapers, magazines and other media conglomerates have successfully implemented a pay-per-click model for accessing print content on the internet. They’ve successfully won lawsuits to prosecute copyright infringement so blogs can no longer summarize the important point of posted story. Knowledge is no longer free.
So what does the world look like? Is the internet populated with rumors? Are the citizens grossly misinformed? Are the journalists fat, happy, and well-paid? No.
Simply put, newspapers are obslete, the analytical style of the most popular magazines is a thing of the past, and the media conglomerates are wimpering, sniveling little businesses fighting to stay alive.
The people—the bloggers, the Tweeps, the Facebook frienders—are the news source of today. They see, they post, they share. Are there lies and misinformation? Sure. But there’s also a discerning population of internet browsers, made cautious by rampant internet rumors and then educated by the librarians and teachers of the world to weed out the misinformation. These webcrawlers know how to read and verify. They’re not afraid to dispel rumors by posting whip-like comments exposing the lies.
~
A lot has been said this week—this week in August 2009—about implementing a pay-per-click model for print content like Apples has with iTunes movies, music and television shows. Rupert Murdoch and others in the newspaper industry have said that a pay-per-click model will revolutionize the newspaper industry, pulling it out of its current economic slump.
Courtesy | Jeremy Kemp via Wikimedia Commons
The missing factor is that which is most obvious: music, movies, and television shows are timeless. When a consumer buys any one of the three, they’re able to enjoy the content for eternity. News is not the same.
Don’t believe me? Go ahead. Pull out a newspaper from June 1, 2004. How about one from Aug. 5 1982 or from any other date? Do the articles hold your interest in the same way that breaking news does today? Is the front page item a classic, an absolute favorite that you read over and over again? Unless you’re an absolute media junkie, I suspect not.
Looking for a new business model in an economic downturn is wise. But Murdoch and others must realize that when they borrow a business model from a successful enterprise, they must consider all the differing factors between that company’s business and ours. Otherwise, they’re just hammering that final nail in the coffin of print media.
Why wouldn't people just rely on TV for their news? Like I said before, I really don't think this will work. Randall had a good point about subscriptions. I'd would definitely pay a yearly fee to read CNN.com. (Or what else would I do all day at work?) But there's no way I'd pay for each story. I'd wait till I got home from work and watch the nightly news.
ReplyDeleteA very frightening futuristic post! I'm not one to watch the nightly news (though perhaps I should) so this premonition is even scarier.
ReplyDeleteThe Media Proofreader: Absolutely, some people will rely on broadcast news to get their information. But, unfortunately, that doesn't save the nuanced stories provided in some print news sources. Perhaps these sources will be able to survive on a subscription-based model. But will those subscriptions pay to maintain a staff of journalists? And what happens to the small town newspapers that report on daily life? A pay-per-click model will undoubtedly push them under.
ReplyDeleteMemoirs: Scary indeed! Hopefully, we'll discover some way save print media/pay for the content so that we don't have to come to that.