Newspapers Online: Why Information Will No Longer Be Free

The Columbia Journalism Review ^ | January/February 2003 | Michael Scherer

[A Citizen Reporter]

"If you want the cold, hard details, you'll have to pay for them, or at least go to a library."

See this is where you are wrong. Because the "journalists" as they exist today have proved that they DO NOT report any cold, hard details. So they have no value-added. Thus, people are not willing to pay for it.

[GatekeeperBookman]

Sure, but 2 million is nothing. Look at the counters on Drudge & check the numbers for ALL the talk hosts.

[cookcounty]

"And another thing. Major newspapers and network media do not report what is really going on in the world. "

Exactly. Or they report partialy and in a way honed and calculated to insult the intelligence of most people that care about the news. I used to watch the network news almost every night for years. Now I watch maybe once a week, because I don't like being insulted.

[longtermmemmory]

I am also tired of commecial sites using spyware. EVERY SINGLE major candidate's website has an email capture protocol. (I believe even drudge has something to that effect)

[longtermmemmory]

abccbsnbc is usually a day behind on 2nd tier stories.

[Timesink]

Just keep in mind that this same article could have been written in 1995 or 1996. A lot of newspaper web sites, when they first launched, attempted to charge for much, if not all, of their content. (Even The New York Times charged overseas readers.) All those so-called "business models" fell apart as it quickly became apparent that practically nobody was, or is, willing to pay extra for online content. The only sites that have been able to succeed at this are sites that offer huge amounts of content truly available nowhere else, such as The Wall Street Journal. (And in their case, it helps a lot that the majority of WSJ.com subs are paid for by subscribers' employers and/or can be written off on their subscribers' tax returns.) Local newspapers, even ones with monopolies, cannot pull this off because the amount of local content they provide is limited and they will always have competition from local TV and radio station web sites; note that The Albuquerque Journal did not say they were making a profit on their web site, only that they WANT to.

This is little more than the result of a bunch of inexperienced newspaper web site managers that are either too young to remember the first time everyone tried this, or who are arrogant enough to think that they can pull off what their predecessors could not. They too will fail.

[Timesink]

Major newspapers and network media do not report what is really going on in the world. New York City raised its terror warnings today, and there was not one word reported by ABC, CBS, NBC or the New York Slimes.

No, NYC did not raise their terror alert level. New York City has been on orange alert since the day the Homeland Security Advisory System was created, because they are by far the most likely city to be attacked.

Newspundit.net is DEAD WRONG.

[Timesink]

abccbsnbc is usually a day behind on 2nd tier stories.

See post 27. They're not reporting it because it isn't true.

[mrustow]

Someday they will report, not just a university department, that giving things away does not make a profit.

It will be an epiphany for many of them.

Tell that to Annie Coulter. She gives away her columns, which results in her making millions off her books. The notion that you have to charge for everything is Victorian morality masquerading as economic science.

Besides, the day when all the liberals have that epiphany, will be the day when FR must shut down.

[GeronL]

Newspapers aren't writing books in sufficient numbers to make a profit. Giving away ALL of their original content is bad for business. The WSJ does it right.

---

BTW, I cut up some newspapers and I have this to say using those cut outs like a ransom note

N

o

w

t

h

a

t

s

A

t

h

r

e

a

d

!!

[mrustow]

From the Albuquerque Journal to The Columbus Dispatch

Well, there you go -- if the Journal and the Dispatch are charging, then clearly, that is the wave of the future!

[mrustow]

Newspapers aren't writing books in sufficient numbers to make a profit.

ROTFL

Giving away ALL of their original content is bad for business. The WSJ does it right.

The WSJ does it right -- for the WSJ. While what the WSJ does sounds good in theory, someone posted an article a number of months ago, that argued that the WSJ is such a unique business that it can't serve as a model for anyone else. It's the Bible of the business world, and many of its subscribers get it to write off on their expense account, or their taxes. No other newspaper enjoys so many "Net" positives.

[GeronL]

well yea, there is that. =o)

[BADROTOFINGER]

What you said. Precisely. It isnt up to them. Free at last...JFK

[gipper81]

These late-night, serious journalism threads about bleading edge research from leading newspapers is just, just fantastic!

[m18436572]

"Online news junkies will increasingly have to give up money or personal information to get their previously free fix."

Guess what a-holes, we never read your trash in the first place!

[gipper81]

Guess what a-holes, we never read your trash in the first place!

These guys have got to be getting their bleading-edge thinking from alGore or somebody like that. Didn't he teach at Columbia?

[dangus]

Any local paper that thinks it can retain its readership by charging money to its on-line content is painfully stupid. Why pay to subsribe to the Albany Times-Union when you can get the Washington Post, NY Times, or National Review On-Line?

[McGavin999]

I don't mind paying for something like the Wall Street Journal, but I won't pay a penny for the LAT or the NYT. What we'll all do is to paraphrase their garbage and still discuss it. We're usually ahead of most of the media anyway. Most of them just rewrite the AP and Reuters stuff anyway. We'll just get local reporting from where ever the news is happening.

[Spruce]

A printer by trade my entire life. It was truly only a matter of time before the newspapers felt the sting of the internet.
I have witnessed first-hand the effect of digital technology on the printing industry. I am amazed that it has taken this long to hit them.