The Times' web readership plummets

Do you really think anyone wants to read a whole load of serious comments from you two muppets?

The inquirer is a site for pi55t4king, not listening to you idiots write your own articles in the comments section.

Stop arguing with someone you'll never meet.

“Firstly what is "obvious" is that "The Times" and "the media" are not synonymous”
You thought I was suggesting that e.g. HEAT magazine is one of the publications that holds a civic duty? Don't be a fool. I express myself just fine but you insist on being pedantic so you can pretend I lack skills of expression. If I have to individually specify all intended and non intended targets I'd be here all day.

“Secondly, it is for The Times to decide what their role should be”
Here: “The Times are in fact suggesting that their news is not substantive enough to need the largest possible audience; *and that's fine* so long as they admit to having zero responsibility to the public and are only into entertaining readers”. It's *fine* for them to pursue any course they wish, dear.

“*some* media outlets serve a function that might, or might not be, beneficial to society, democracy, a political party, certain political or economic interests, certain politicians or economic stakeholders, is wholly irrelevant. They are not required to do so”
You've gone from saying media has no purpose other than profit motive to now accepting some may choose to carry a sense of civic duty. Good stuff. I never suggested they were “required” nor did I use that word. Some publications view themselves as serious substantive journalism. Those publications (such as The Times) have taken up that important mantle of their choosing. It irks me that the pretence still exists given that evidently not everyone needs to read them, thus it can't be too important. “Hi you can only read about your elected politicians' corrupt misdoings if u pay us a direct fee”. What a joke. Some information should not be held to a ransom fee.

“If you think that any muckraking, socially-crusading media outlet would continue to muckrake and lead social crusades if it wasn't good for the survival of their business by increasing readership, viewership, etc, then you are delusional”.
Journalism pre-dates capitalism and so you're only commentating on the present day state of affairs, which is fair enough but so long as you acknowledge the higher purpose of the media's duty to citizens, I'm happy. I've already explained that ratings are important by referencing Paris Hilton, and described it as distracting as far as substantive media is concerned. The necessary evil of reporting spurious “news” given our current economic system of incentive.

“On an individual level, would Woodward and Bernstein have investigated Watergate, if, in the years prior to the Watergate break-in, they left off being reporters because they were dissatisfied with their salaries?”
I agree, no they wouldn't have. Importantly I never ever suggested that journalists should not be paid; I'm bemoaning the present economic incentive structure.

“If it was "the point of media" to be "a watchdog on markets" or a "watchdog on government" then there would be no need for the public to finance the BBC”
The point is that the economic incentive structure inhibits a media organisation's ability to focus on the substantive and disregard the more populist issues which may not be important at all. Like which club Jordan rolled out of drunk this week. Guaranteed state funding removes this dilemma and allows freedom from the inhibiting free market forces.

“You can invent a spurious "moral imperative" such as "the point of the media" or anything else you want, but if you try to run a business on it, you will find out how little it is worth, and it will never exist anywhere except inside your head”
My how you've regressed, and even contradicted your previous comment: “*some* media outlets serve a function that might, or might not be, beneficial to society, democracy [...]”. Well here's an excerpt from the book: The Elements of Journalism.
1.Journalism's first obligation is to the truth.
2.Its first loyalty is to the citizens.
3.Its essence is discipline of verification.
4.Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
5.It must serve as an independent monitor of power.
6.It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.
7.It must strive to make the significant interesting, and relevant.
8.It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.
9.Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.
10.Its the rights and responsibilities of citizens.
I'm sure you'd love to add point #11 – PROFIT!!! haha
“If you think that recognizing these obvious facts is "borderline sociopathic" then you need to find out what the phrases "cognitive dissonance" and "reaction formation" mean”
Sorry, but the profit motive is (artificially) linked to our ability to feed, and so is a basic instinct. If I exactly followed my sex drive I'd rape everything that walked, much in the same way corporations rape the environment. It's why we have state funded anything, because you can't leave EVERYTHING to the profit motive. It's why we have the NHS, the BBC, DfE, MoD etc. Can you imagine if a fire-fighter asked for a direct fee before putting out the fire on your home? They need to be rewarded for their efforts (not only monetarily) but asking for reward at the point of dispensing their service (where it's a public duty) creates the possibility of that fire not being put out at all. The Times will only report major political corruption to those who've paid a direct fee. If you think the home-owner should pay before having the fire put out, then you are a sociopath. If you think political corruption should only be reported to those who've paid that direct fee, then you are a sociopath who cares not a jot for society or for democracy because you're a profit minded lab rat only pushing levers when they dispense the almighty dollar.
“Maybe The Times is suggesting that what they publish is significant enough to be paid for.” Significant/substantive issues deserve a small(er) audience? That's asinine and for obvious reasons. “Hi you can read about Watergate but only if you're one of the 1m (of 200m) citizens who paid this month's fee”. HAHA. All of your arguments are totally insipid.
“Tell me which of those scandals were both uncovered, and investigated, by newspapers or media outlets which operate at an economic loss”
I explained that civic media duty is inhibited (but not made impossible) by the present day incentive structure. Most countries do not have a public service media outlet like the BBC so your numbers would be severely skewed by that. America doesn't have one so how could Watergate be exposed by a non-existent public media service?
“Again, what is "obvious" is that newspapers that cover politics and other "serious matters" frequently vie for the honour of uncovering and investigating scandals; it is seen as a good advertisement for their publication, leading to a larger audience.” Yes exactly! Honour motivates! Finally you've unearthed a motive that isn't profit. I knew you could do it! However there aren't enough scandals to go around for keeping circulation numbers up day by day for serious publications. This is also “obvious”
“That does not mean that every media outlet is obliged in any sense” Again, free will! I'm not placing any arbitrary imposition here. It's just that The Times has all the pretences of a serious publication who strangely only want to inform a small subscription audience. They should go for it, but not pretend to care about general public awareness of substantive issues (and they DO try to be substantive) because they don't. Awareness is not just for awareness's sake; only by unearthing misdoings can we seek to punish them, ergo The Times are not interested in the public's ability to enact change so there's no point in being substantive. The Times will fail, and u don't need to be a soothsayer to recognise it.
“You whine about the moral responsibilities of the media, and the exceptionally important role the media fulfills, and then in your very next breath seem to say that there is something wrong with having to pay the media for their services”
I never said journalists should not be paid; again, I'm bemoaning the incentive structure. In fact I think journalists should be paid a fairer proportion of the revenues they generate (as opposed to it being syphoned off by the management structure). A straw man is rather like a punch bag, it can't defend itself.
“There is no sensible reason for The Times to make their content available for free. “ Nobody's doing it for free! Mr. Murdock obviously isn't satisfied with the advertising revenue. Well I and many others won't fill the void in his soul and that's why The Times will fail; or at least be diminished in every way conceivable through Murdoch's old school view of the world where the landscape was thoroughly dominated by people like him: information gatekeepers. “Information wants to be free”

"I was talking about The Times (therefore referring to serious and often political journalism when referring to "the media" therefore it's rather redundant stating that Hello and OK magazine's role (for example) is to not be a watchdog. Stating the obvious."

Firstly what is "obvious" is that "The Times" and "the media" are not synonymous. Learn to express yourself better. Secondly, it is for The Times to decide what their role should be. How the authority to make that decision devolved upon you would be interesting to hear.

As for your list of scandals, Watergate etc, my point stands. Media *is* what media *does*. That *some* media outlets serve a function that might, or might not be, beneficial to society, democracy, a political party, certain political or economic interests, certain politicians or economic stakeholders, is wholly irrelevant. They are not required to do so.
If you think that any muckraking, socially-crusading media outlet would continue to muckrake and lead social crusades if it wasn't good for the survival of their business by increasing readership, viewership, etc, then you are delusional. On an individual level, would Woodward and Bernstein have investigated Watergate, if, in the years prior to the Watergate break-in, they left off being reporters because they were dissatisfied with their salaries? (The BBC might not be a for-profit corporation but do reporters at the BBC work for substantially less than reporters at for-profit corporations? Didn't think so. They want to be paid too. Paid well, too, I should think.)
If it was "the point of media" to be "a watchdog on markets" or a "watchdog on government" then there would be no need for the public to finance the BBC. That the BBC or any publicly funded organ like seems to be needed, is simply because there is *no* "point of the media". You can invent a spurious "moral imperative" such as "the point of the media" or anything else you want, but if you try to run a business on it, you will find out how little it is worth, and it will never exist anywhere except inside your head.
If you think that recognizing these obvious facts is "borderline sociopathic" then you need to find out what the phrases "cognitive dissonance" and "reaction formation" mean.

"By putting up a pay wall, The Times are in fact suggesting that their news is not substantive enough to need the largest possible audience; and that's fine so long as they admit to having zero responsibility to the public and are only into entertaining readers for a fee, like The Daily Express."

Maybe The Times is suggesting that what they publish is significant enough to be paid for. *You* might not agree, but that, as hard as it might be for you to believe, is irrelevant.
And what you consider "admitting to having zero responsibility to the public" seems to turn out to actually mean "diverging from *your opinion* of what their responsibilities should be, and how they should fulfill them". Again, why should that be of any interest to anyone other than you?

Okay, here's what. Look at the scandals you enumerated above. Tell me which of those scandals were both uncovered, and investigated, by newspapers or media outlets which operate at an economic loss, how many by publicly-financed organs such as the BBC, and how many by run-of-the-mill, for-profit media entities. The tally will be very one-sided. Again, what is "obvious" is that newspapers that cover politics and other "serious matters" frequently vie for the honour of uncovering and investigating scandals; it is seen as a good advertisement for their publication, leading to a larger audience. You do not seem to know that a scandal is always good for circulation: a celebrity scandal is good for that segment of the media that appeals to the celebrity-following public, and a political scandal for media that appeals to the politically-interested segment of the public.
If they conduct their business in a way that *seems* to conform to your idea of how media ought to conduct themselves, it is *only* because they find it profitable.
That does not mean that every media outlet is obliged in any sense - financially, morally, politically - to be a "watchdog on markets" and a "watchdog on government".

And here is what is really astounding: You whine about the moral responsibilities of the media, and the exceptionally important role the media fulfills, and then in your very next breath seem to say that there is something wrong with having to pay the media for their services, which are, as you seem to imply, insuring the survival of democracy, and cleansing the political process of corruption. If the media does that, then they deserve to be paid for it. If their functions are important then they deserve to be paid well. If you are not willing to pay them for the functions they perform, then do not complain if they do not perform it.
And if they are imply providing entertainment, then why should that be free also?
There is no sensible reason for The Times to make their content available for free.

“The percent of media outlets which have nothing to with being a "watchdog on markets" and "watchdog on government" is overwhelming”
I was talking about The Times (therefore referring to serious and often political journalism when referring to “the media”) therefore it's rather redundant stating that Hello and OK magazine's role (for example) is to not be a watchdog. Stating the obvious.

“And really, the very idea that there is some "point of the media" (whatever you might mean by that) is naive in the extreme”
Were it not for journalists with a substantive purpose we would never have uncovered: Watergate, Marconi scandal, Lloyd George and the honours scandal, Burmah Oil (now BP) bribing Winston Churchill to monopolise (and syphon away) Persian oil reserves, Arms-to-Iraq scandal, UK MP expenses scandal or The Gulf of Tonkin incident (a false lag attack leading to the Vietnam war). To suggest that the profit motive is more important than corruption, subjugation or any injustice that should be reported on is borderline sociopathic. For this very reason we have public service media outlets like the BBC because it is understood that some things cannot be subject to profit, so we guarantee their funding to guarantee they won't be distracted from their role by having to whore themselves taking pictures of Paris Hilton in order to increase viewership and in turn increase revenue. Any criticism you level at the BBC is criticism of the BBC and not the concept behind state sponsored public service media

“you need to explain why it is better to have 100 million readers paying an average of one cent each, then one million reader paying one dollar each”
By putting up a pay wall, The Times are in fact suggesting that their news is not substantive enough to need the largest possible audience; and that's fine so long as they admit to having zero responsibility to the public and are only into entertaining readers for a fee, like The Daily Express.

@Jon

"The point of the media is to be a watchdog on the markets and on government; and of course to have an audience. The Times have been failing to do the former and are now in the process of failing in the latter. Apparently you do not understand the role of the media.
posted by : Jon"

I am sorry to have to "break the news" to you, but it is YOU who does not understand the "role of media". And I mean its real role, not the role that you think it should play. The percent of media outlets which have nothing to with being a "watchdog on markets" and "watchdog on government" is overwhelming: whether it is publications devoted to hobbyists such as coin collectors or sailing enthusiasts, or dog fanciers, or whether the media in question are movies about romance, or television shows about ufo's or gardening or stupid sitcoms, or radio shows about sports, or stations which only play music, the amount of attention given by the media to such pursuits and pastimes surely dwarfs the attention the media devotes to being a "watchdog on markets" and a "watchdog on government".

The media are simply means of communication; the idea that their communication must be, or is somehow, let us say, "properly" about markets or government is rather foolish.

And really, the very idea that there is some "point of the media" (whatever you might mean by that) is naive in the extreme. Of course, saying "the point of the media.. is to have an audience" is trivial, especially when it is possible to have an audience, most of which does almost nothing to contribute income to the running of the particular media outlet. Newsflash! Media are businesses! And not very many media outlets are willing to operate at a loss. The audience desired by an outlet might be the broadest audience possible. Or it might desire a select or specific audience, by either demographic or interest. If you want to take the contrary view from that expressed in my post, then you need to explain why it is better to have 100 million readers paying an average of one cent each, then one million reader paying one dollar each. But you were not able to grasp that, even though it was the central point in my post. Unless you are one of those ill-informed people who think that a larger audience will necessarily generate more income than a smaller audience, under any and all circumstances.

Also Alexa is in no way an accurate measurement tool for determining actual visitor numbers. Alexa's numbers are always wrong, skewed and off - the only questions is by which magnitude.

This is a non-story.

As well. Not that it is a Rupert owned media but they started a trial of having to pay to get to certain articles. I used to get the NY Times several times in my email a day and the advertising that went with it.

When they announced they were going to make you pay for the articles as well as still having the advertisements I cut off the NY Times.

I haven't noticed any difference in my everyday life except several emails a day that I don't read.

STUFF IT NY TIMES!

The point of the media is to be a watchdog on the markets and on government; and of course to have an audience. The Times have been failing to do the former and are now in the process of failing in the latter. Apparently you do not understand the role of the media.

This story means very little.

If, however, the story told us the average "profit per visitor" of the old, free site, vs. the new "profit per visitor" of the new, no-longer-free site, the story would have meaning. After all, the old site might have - to take a few numbers completely at random - 100 million visitors, each generating a profit of one cent each. If the new site generates a profit of one dollar each, but only receives 1 million visitors, the number of readers might have declined by 99%, but the site's income remains the same.

Unfortunately, the story contains no information of this sort. Instead, there is the usual freetarded idea that sheer numbers generate income by themselves, or that sheer numbers serve in place of income.

Although it might be pleasant for Nick Farrel and his ilk to think that Murdoch "does not understand the web" it is certainly truer to say that, judging by this article, Nick Farrel and his ilk do not understand business.

Down 40% from last month, but whether this translates into actual losses is a different matter. It's like the statistics used to describe "losses" due to piracy: would those extra people have really translated into extra profits?

if Murdoch's rags werent so full of crap then maybe people would pay money for them
but he loves to publish his crap so lets sit back and watch him learn the hard way
hahahaha

I used to check out the Times Online at least a couple of times a day. Since the first "Your must register" screen popped up I've deleted my bookmark.