1) Do you agree with James Murdoch that the BBC should not be allowed to provide free news online? Why?
As a consumer of the news I oppose Murdoch's argument because of the contagion this emits across the news industry, thus deterring news companies from putting up digital paywalls. However, I do believe that the quality of content would be enhanced as a consequence of the pay requirement, which may be an exciting change in the way we consume news from leading institutions.
2) Read this blog on the Times paywall three years on.
Was Rupert Murdoch right to put his news content (The Times, The Sun) behind a paywall?
I believe that the paywall was a right decision because it seems practical for an audience to be offered a subscription to quality content in the form of digital news reporting. Mike Darcey's point about loyalty to a subscribed platform having higher value than odd traffic stumbling upon a website via Google is valid as the niche audience would desire a trusted source amongst a digital abundance.
3) Choose two comments from below the Times paywall article - one that argues in favour of the paywall and one that argues against. Copy a quote from each and explain which YOU agree with and why.
Comment favouring paywall - "In any business, success depends on delivering one of three things to customers: lowest cost, differential quality, or a niche unavailable elsewhere. Newsprint is no exception, but the lowest cost product in the marketplace is set at zero.
The Times isn't niche, that's the like of aviation monthly, so it has to deliver a product of sufficient quality for readers to be willing to pay the premium. Is it doing this? I would say not really, more work is needed, and it's hard to see how the quality can improve with costs being cut."
This supports my earlier stated argument favouring the paywall as the standard of quality from the print-press has evidently dropped.
Comment disputing paywall - "It is so ridiculous if these mainstream newspapers believe that they can "force readership of fee-based news. One can get the same "news" for free almost anywhere on the internet. I'd take a hint from the alternative free weeklies that survive just off their local advertising. I don't think anyone would read them otherwise. These papers are full of paid advertising. The fee model will never work." There is an abundance of news sources especially today with the integration of social media and citizen journalism.
4) Read this article from the Media Briefing on the continuing decline of the newspaper industry.
Why do you think the Evening Standard has bucked the trend and increased circulation and profit in the last two years?
The ES has succeeded due to its liberal availability across the London metropolitan. This has enticed advertisers to invest in features due to the vast coverage of the paper.
5) Is there any hope for the newspaper industry or will it eventually die out? Provide a detailed response to this question explaining and justifying your opinion.
The newspaper industry will inevitably die out (as vinyl and CDs have in the music distribution industry) if digital media is to remain predominant in the lifestyles of mass audiences. I propose the possibility that newspapers will become antique and vintage and thus produced scarcely for a very specific demand, but not as a method of mass distribution for news because all is digitally accessible. This is reinforced by digital advancements and the abundant availability of resources such as internet access and hardware for audiences to access this news immediately and to their own convenience.
No comments:
Post a Comment