Talk of virtue and your readers will become bored. Hint of gossip and you will secure perfect attention - Walter Winchell
|
|
|
The Times defends its paywall
LONDON RAG The Times has come out with all guns blazing in defense of its announcement last week to put up a paywall.
That announcement was the realisation of newspaper boy Rupert Murdoch's dream of finding ways to charge readers for news content. However the idea of charging a quid a day to read the news when numerous outlets are giving it away for free is at best risky and, realistically, suicidal.
The newspaper came out and defended itself by saying that it was in the "absurd position" of charging people £2 to read the Sunday Times while putting up the content on its website for free. According to the rag, most famous for hastily publishing the forged Hitler diaries, its scribes put a lot of effort into "producing the best journalism we possibly can".
After blaming a fall in its online revenues on the recession, it tries to tug at its readers' heartstrings by arguing that if it doesn't charge for news then it won't be able to send reporters on month long junkets. After that emotional plea for readers to cough up, the former broadsheet paints a grim picture of journalism standards should its efforts fail, saying that the public should realise that "nothing of value is free".
In a surprising move, the rag admits that there is a "risk involved when [so] much other good journalism is still available [for] free online". Perhaps adequate editing is in order before the rag can hit the lofty goal of producing "the best journalism" to which it aspires.
Judging by the readers' comments, which include "no chance think again" and the obvious "I expect I'll just get info elsewhere," The Times might be in for a rough ride as its readers up sticks and point their browsers elsewhere. With advertising likely to follow readers, the top brass at News International could have to start thinking about how they are going to do the painful and ultimately embarrassing U-turn.
In related news, The Guardian deployed a redesign of sorts to its front page. While The Times will do the same prior to its paywall going up, the real question for Murdoch and The Times to ponder is how long will rival rags continue to offer free content, even at a financial loss, just to run a bitter rival out of business. µ
Share this:
Share
The Times doesn't need to defend its decision to charge for access. The Web site, and the content, belong to it and it has a right to control access in any way it likes.
I just shan't be reading it any more. (With, as some other readers have pointed out, beneficial effects on my mental health).
There may be good, hard-working journalists somewhere, but not in the news business these days.
When the front page of news magazines devotes all of its space to discussing the finer points of the economic situation and relegates sports news permanently to the 7th-page sports section, then we might have better journalism.
Until that day, we will have to content ourselves with the current "bread and games" journalism we have today.
And I'm not paying a cent for that.
The news media has become so biased, scaremongering, inaccurate, and lying that its product can be called: misinformation. Now who wants to pay for misinformation? That's like buying rotting vegetables!
Their was a time when one had a choice (competition) to view the news as it was happening, with a view point that could be compared with other news view points. The news now comes in a canned form that is spoon fed and doctored up and controlled by just a few powerful men. We do not have that choice any more.
I'm old enough to remember 'good' journalism from the 70's and 80's. But like so many other modern products, it's been hollowed out and painted over to now 'look' like good journalism. There IS a difference.
Do these numptys not realise that broadsheets and tabloids consistently give politically motivated opinion rather than news. In a world where the flow of information has seen a paradigm shift in the space of 5 years these anachronistic media outlets have rested on their laurels and (like the movie industry) consistently failed to keep up with the times (no pun intended) I don't read these rag mags anyway so it is of no great loss to me, butthis move will only push people to point their browsers at the ostensibly free BEEB website.
It is quickly becoming obvious that newspapers and media organisations cannot survive online while giving their content away for free; just look at The Independent; it got sold the other day for £1, and it consistently puts out the best journalism around (call me a pinko, commie, liberal if you like).
So I for one welcome the advent of paid-for online news.
Having good, hard-working journalists are a vital part of culture we live in. We’d still be paying for the cleaning of our MP’s moats had it not been for some hard-working hacks.
I tell ya, you’ll miss the Fourth Estate when it’s gone.