Posted on 09/09/2010 11:02:33 AM PDT by lbryce
We had already seen the early indications that Rupert Murdoch's paywalls from The Times and The Sunday Times in the UK were a dismal failure, but as more information gets leaked about how the paywalls are working out, it's looking worse and worse. Beyond the fact that not too many people are signing up to pay, the move has upset advertisers who don't want to advertise to such a small audience:
Faced with a collapse in traffic to thetimes.co.uk, some advertisers have simply abandoned the site. Rob Lynam, head of press trading at the media agency MEC, whose clients include Lloyds Banking Group, Orange, Morrisons and Chanel, says, "We are just not advertising on it. If there's no traffic on there, there's no point in advertising on there." Lynam says he has been told by News International insiders that traffic to The Times site has fallen by 90 per cent since the introduction of charges.
On top of that, various PR people and publicists are keeping their sources away from Times reporters, preferring to provide access to news organizations where the story might actually get seen by people, rather than locked up behind Murdoch's paywall:
Publicists have told me that clients are increasingly reluctant to give interviews or stories to The Times, on the grounds that they would not be made freely available via search engines.
(Excerpt) Read more at techdirt.com ...
I used to read the UK Times online, as it was a good source of info that the MSM did not have. Plus, I like the Jeremy Clarkson rants. But when it went pay, I decided to do without.
looks like a failed effort, but an effort none the less.
at least he tried.
Bloggers get the news better anyway, it’s more varied and then the public picks it up and distributes it if it’s important or interesting. FR is better than any magazine or newspaper on the planet.
You can get around the WSJ paywall by using Google. Murdoch has complained mightily about this.
Hmmm.
It’s not the case anymore, except for the fact that the WSJ itself provides access to all articles, including the subscriber only links you can’t access directly from the WSJ, by submitting the article’s exact title into the Google News search field.
Even pornography is going belly-up (no pun intended), for many of the same reasons that plague other media ventures - people can get it for free too easily. Free porn is ubiquitous on the internet, invasive really.
I think in the longer term, this really does bode poorly for the health of the Republic (not the end of porn, but the end of newspapers, print or online). Yes, we all hate the media, but the fact of the matter is without a viable check (or at least what should be a check) on the government, things will spiral even more quickly out of control.
What has been established is the only media form that is (increasingly) viable, is one that is based primarily on news commentary, and not news gathering. Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly will have nothing to talk about, if there are no "news" stories to comment on and either praise or (more frequently) berate. Free Republic will be pretty barren if people are only posting articles from commentators.
FNC makes money hand over fist. This is not because they generate more ad revenue (their ad revenues are only marginally better than CNN or MSNBC), but because they operate so much more cheaply than their competitors. The reduction in cost comes primarily from having fewer bodies and equipment in the field. Let's face it, they do MUCH less reporting and much more commenting.
The country needs reporters. It's too bad not enough people believe it - or won't believe it until it's too late.
You just confirmed what I said -- that you can get to the articles using Google. What am I missing?
Perhaps, but until they do, you can read all the articles in WSJ for free.
I only added to your right-on comments to provide the specific method in which to gain free access, qualifying that the only way to gain access is if submitted only to Google News, not Google Web Search.
Yes, and the reader comments and discussion add more content than the article itself.
If Murdoch can’t do it, then no one can do it.
I think this is something that the market will take care of. I understand your concern about lack of news gathering. The reality that I see though is that hand held camcorders and phones provide more realistic views of events and stories than the old system did. Internet has provided me with revolutionary information relative to the old NYT,AP,CBS,NBC,ABC regime which was filled with lies and ignored stories. Lies have a hard time surviving in the new age and people are thier own filters and editors through social networking or whatever buzz word you want to apply to links to stories that are of interest.
Phrased simply: If there is demand for a product (news) it will be supplied. Supply and demand balance in a market. A way to monetize delivery will be developed. If fact checking is valued a way to monetize fact checking will be developed. Personally, I think each of us is a pretty good fact checker given the wealth of info on the net, and news orgs are biased and terrible fact checkers (thier biases rather than mine are at play).
I'm not sure I follow you on the last. It seems to me that there are reporters everywhere, most armed with camera phones, a lot with video phones, and quite a few with the capability to stream video, with commentary, directly to Facebook, Qik, YouTube, etc. You can post to FR directly from your iPhone or similar.That is a LOT of reporters. Having a designated news reporter to screen the stories begs them publish the stories they like. I would rather talk to, or read about from, someone who was there.
There are entirely too many Dan Rathers around; It appears the model is now changing to a 'From many, one.' We are all reporters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.