They want us to pay for news:
"Rupert Murdoch said earlier this year his News Corp. media empire would begin charging for online content on its portfolio of titles including The Wall Street Journal, the London Times and the New York Post" -
see CNN.
Publishing news via dead trees was losing both sales and advertising long before the recession. IMHO we are seeing the end of a once successful business model - and maybe desperate attempts to try to change reality to fit a re-hash of the same model. People pay to buy a newspaper; they read news from the same news-gathering organisation that sells newspapers on the streets for free online so maybe that's why they're buying fewer papers. And that's hurting business so we make them pay to read online in the same way we make them pay to read on paper. Yes? No?
I'd say "No". One obvious problem is that unless all news outlets switch to "pay for content" at the same time those that don't will get more clicks, therefore get more advertising revenue. Conversely those switching will inevitably loose visitors - so loosing advertising revenue and becoming more dependent on income from charging - and into a rising charge spiral. One very big competitor that is very unlikely to charge is the BBC. Hence, (or am I being cynical?) the attack on said organ by Murdoch
fils in
Edinburgh - and the subsequent
free and frank exchange of views with Robert Peston
But I reckon I'm a pretty average news punter. I click on sites from different countries to get a quick feel for what today's agenda is there (US, germany, Canada ...); if there's a topic of the moment, I have a quick look for it on left, right, and foreign news sites. But that's what it is - a quick: click, yeah, yeah, la-di-da, different angle, that's not what the last one said - and off. 5-10 seconds each I'd guess. Am I going to pay for that? No way.
But Murdoch misses a big point. The fewer news outlets are free, the more I'll use the BBC - but not just because it's free, more because I trust it in a way I do not trust News Corp or any other commercial news site that is almost forced to pick and slant its news with one eye on a powerful "Big Man" and the other on what the advertisers expect. Free news on the Web lets me compare. If I can't compare I'll look for impartiality. But there's more.
Even the very idea of "news" and news gathering is changing - has changed. What grips me more: News Corp passing on the official line on the Iraq war? Embedded reporters saying what they're allowed to say about what they're allowed to see? Or click on
Where Is Raed? I can read The Baghdad Blogger's latest post telling me where the missiles hit, what people in Baghdad are saying, how daily life is changing - and then send him a question by mail and get a reply. What can News Corp (or the BBC) offer to compete with that? Where do you think I went first for news of the Iraq war? What engaged me most and made me think most? Who do you think I believed?