biggambi
Vivere!
Bill: I hope you do not mind me posting this topic, in essence intruding onto your turf. I just think it fits well with your profession and those attracted to your section on RFF.
I have been pondering what it will mean if other online newspapers follow the New York Times, and begin to charge their online readers. As everyone is aware, printed papers are dying a slow death, and for a long time television news has been the strong market. But, there is no denying the strength of the internet. It seemed that the internet was bringing new life to the papers; or, at least it seemed to offer a broader audience easier access to many sources.
With the number of blogs popping up, and their strong appeal to small select audiences. I am wondering, will the way we get our news change? Will the photographs continue to give way, to video clips shot by non-professionals? If newspapers begin to charge, will people begin to seek more of these non-traditional sources such as blogs and sites with private or political agendas? What will this mean for the press photographer? I realize that each paper has its political bend, but there has typically been an ethical standard regarding sources and photographs. Once images are established on the internet, they can be posted without ever knowing the source or credibility over and over again. What will happen to trustworthy sources and the integrity of imagery?
Thanks for indulging me,
M.
I have been pondering what it will mean if other online newspapers follow the New York Times, and begin to charge their online readers. As everyone is aware, printed papers are dying a slow death, and for a long time television news has been the strong market. But, there is no denying the strength of the internet. It seemed that the internet was bringing new life to the papers; or, at least it seemed to offer a broader audience easier access to many sources.
With the number of blogs popping up, and their strong appeal to small select audiences. I am wondering, will the way we get our news change? Will the photographs continue to give way, to video clips shot by non-professionals? If newspapers begin to charge, will people begin to seek more of these non-traditional sources such as blogs and sites with private or political agendas? What will this mean for the press photographer? I realize that each paper has its political bend, but there has typically been an ethical standard regarding sources and photographs. Once images are established on the internet, they can be posted without ever knowing the source or credibility over and over again. What will happen to trustworthy sources and the integrity of imagery?
Thanks for indulging me,
M.
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
The Times has made several efforts to charge for online content, none of which were successful. I've never heard a business, newspaper or otherwise, promise that it's product would always be free.
bmattock
Veteran
wgerrard
Veteran
The actual founders of the internet envisioned it as a place for scientists and academicians to share information. They never envisioned that it would become the dominant communications, publishing, and entertainment vehicle.
Many newspapers have tried to make money from the internet, but few have had consistent success, primarily because ad sales for the net version of the paper are often weak. The NYT might have an outside chance to successfully charge for what it calls value-added content because it is an international paper with a good reputation and is more or less mandatory reading for many people. Few other papers have those advantages.
I have no expectation that blogs have the capability to replace the news gathering and production capacity of newspapers. A site that emulates that capability -- such as Huffington Post or Politico -- are no more legitimate blogs the NYT's site. They are full-blown and well-staffed news organizations.
We will continue to see an increasing number of non-professional images on the web, for two reasons. First, just to feed the machine. Every new site wants its images. Second, non-pro and user generated content is dirt cheap, if not free. (For a prime example of a site that relies on user-generated content, look at RFF.)
And, yes, as we are already seeing, many people will happily abandon newspapers for the comforting reassurance of blogs and other net sources that support their political agendas and biases. The lesson is this: Many people are more interested in being told they are right than in consuming legitimate news.
Many newspapers have tried to make money from the internet, but few have had consistent success, primarily because ad sales for the net version of the paper are often weak. The NYT might have an outside chance to successfully charge for what it calls value-added content because it is an international paper with a good reputation and is more or less mandatory reading for many people. Few other papers have those advantages.
I have no expectation that blogs have the capability to replace the news gathering and production capacity of newspapers. A site that emulates that capability -- such as Huffington Post or Politico -- are no more legitimate blogs the NYT's site. They are full-blown and well-staffed news organizations.
We will continue to see an increasing number of non-professional images on the web, for two reasons. First, just to feed the machine. Every new site wants its images. Second, non-pro and user generated content is dirt cheap, if not free. (For a prime example of a site that relies on user-generated content, look at RFF.)
And, yes, as we are already seeing, many people will happily abandon newspapers for the comforting reassurance of blogs and other net sources that support their political agendas and biases. The lesson is this: Many people are more interested in being told they are right than in consuming legitimate news.
Last edited:
biggambi
Vivere!
Agreed, after looking at the times article: The Times to Charge for Frequent Access to Its Web Site, on Jan 20, 2010. I did not remember this quote accurately: "For years, publishers banked on a digital future supported entirely by advertising, dismissing online fees as little more than a formula for shrinking their audiences and ad revenue. But two years of plummeting advertising has many of them weighing anew whether they might collect more money from readers than they would lose from advertisers."
I do know this has been attempted before by several papers, including my local paper the Star Tribune. But, the core of my questions still stands, as the historical aspect is trivial to the questions posed. But, thank you for correcting this statement.
Are these smaller publications and possible news sites continuing the tradition of authenticating what they publish? Is the PJ being sub-planted by the ease to attain professional quality digital images from amateurs? I do not know the answers, but I am hoping others may.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
I do hope news publications with established reputations for accuracy and a relative lack of bias continue to exist and exist on the web. And I hope they overpower the unmitigated crap that surfaces when anybody can start a blog and pose as an authority, even steal working journalists material. But it takes a lot of money to run as good an operation as the Times. Money from subscribers will be nowhere suffiicient, even more so when readership drops because there is a charge. Advertising revenue, or something else beside subscriptions, is absolutely needed to support the publication.
While amateur photography of important events can contribute, amateurs aren't going to have White House passes, get embedded with troops or have access to a lot of the subjects that publications want pictures of. As wages drop, the better photographers who can get the higher paying jobs will move to them. There is a danger that some news pictures at some publications will be taken by underpaid folks who don't know much more than how to turn on a camera and set the dial to program. Unfortunately, that can sometimes be an indication that they don't know much about making photographs or what it take to be a decent journalist. Of course, that's not the internet's fault. I saw something similar happen thirty years ago at newspapers where the owners held profit above all else.
While amateur photography of important events can contribute, amateurs aren't going to have White House passes, get embedded with troops or have access to a lot of the subjects that publications want pictures of. As wages drop, the better photographers who can get the higher paying jobs will move to them. There is a danger that some news pictures at some publications will be taken by underpaid folks who don't know much more than how to turn on a camera and set the dial to program. Unfortunately, that can sometimes be an indication that they don't know much about making photographs or what it take to be a decent journalist. Of course, that's not the internet's fault. I saw something similar happen thirty years ago at newspapers where the owners held profit above all else.