SussexAddick at no point did I say Murdoch was evil, your simple phantom-polemic is worthy of his newspapers though. I was stating that Murdoch's solutions and manouvere's in the internet age, have been way behind the curve and disastrous. A pay wall can work and will work, but I doubt very much it will for so such poor journalism as The Times. Just as Hearst lost his grip on his businesses, Murdoch and his family are starting to lose their powers as time's change. Couldn't happen to a bigger load of media drivel.
That is why I listed the FT, which started charging about eight years ago. People need to read the FT, and their website is excellently managed and tandamed well with their print output; the videos they have are often of great interest with many of the interesting players that you rarely see in mainstream media. I'm not quite sure why you make a mystery moral viewpoint to be my own; in some attempt to counter my opinions, that aren't even myne anyway. The FT makes more money from it's content than it does advertising, mainly through it's successfull online charges being a driver for profits. The FT earns almost as much in turnover on it's own as the whole of Assoc Newspapers; and I'd suppose the Daily Mail only makes money online via advertising as it's online site is just one up from an online Nuts. Online Paywalls work, when the content and delivery is desirable to their customer.
I really don't need simplistic Islington pop-psychology comment from an intelligent man such as David Mitchell. To make a moral debate when really all there is to prove if you're right is revenue streams, shows yet again lazy polemic journalism. He completely ignores the reality and history of the situation, in order to find the 'truth' through ill-researched moral ping-pong.
[cite]Posted By: ColinTat[/cite]SussexAddick at no point did I say Murdoch was evil, your simple phantom-polemic is worthy of his newspapers though. I was stating that Murdoch's solutions and manouvere's in the internet age, have been way behind the curve and disastrous. A pay wall can work and will work, but I doubt very much it will for so such poor journalism as The Times. Just as Hearst lost his grip on his businesses, Murdoch and his family are starting to lose their powers as time's change. Couldn't happen to a bigger load of media drivel.
That is why I listed the FT, which started charging about eight years ago. People need to read the FT, and their website is excellently managed and tandamed well with their print output; the videos they have are often of great interest with many of the interesting players that you rarely see in mainstream media. I'm not quite sure why you make a mystery moral viewpoint to be my own; in some attempt to counter my opinions, that aren't even myne anyway. The FT makes more money from it's content than it does advertising, mainly through it's successfull online charges being a driver for profits. The FT earns almost as much in turnover on it's own as the whole of Assoc Newspapers; and I'd suppose the Daily Mail only makes money online via advertising as it's online site is just one up from an online Nuts. Online Paywalls work, when the content and delivery is desirable to their customer.
I really don't need simplistic Islington pop-psychology comment from an intelligent man such as David Mitchell. To make a moral debate when really all there is to prove if you're right is revenue streams, shows yet again lazy polemic journalism. He completely ignores the reality and history of the situation, in order to find the 'truth' through ill-researched moral ping-pong.
Sorry Colin we seem to have a misunderstanding. I know you didn't say he was evil, I did. It was a light hearted segue (you do realise I don't actually think he's a devil) to what I thought was an interesting article.
In hindsight probably shouldn't have quoted you, and perhaps that's where the misunderstanding arose. I just saw the words 'scum' and 'Murdoch' and thought I'd make my own point about this being about more than the quality of the Times, and more about the paywall in general.
I actually agree with most of your post! I'm not trying to 'counter' it.
Cool Sussex. Maybe I struck out, and jumped up and down a bit too much!
And whilst I didn't see the segue, I did realise you don't think he's a devil. Now my dear departed Nan, I do think she saw it in biblical terms. Use to have to throw away the anti Murdoch stickers every time we visited!
[cite]Posted By: SaoPauloAddick[/cite]Murdoch was able to make a success of subscription based TV by buying up exclusive rights for the things people were interested in (Sport and Films) so that they had no choice but to sign up to Sky or go without.
The internet is a very different place, and I can't see how charging a fee is viable when there are so many free sources of information already out there. Sites that offer very specialist information (like the FT) are obviously different, but the showbiz gossip, sports news, biased politics coverage, arts reviews etc. that make up a mainstream newspaper are readily available elsewhere, at no charge, and often by better informed authors than your average Murdoch hack. For example, why would I want to pay Murdoch for a paragraph or two about the latest Charlton game written by someone who probably wasn't even there, when there are blogs like Addicks Diary or New York Addick out there?
I disagree.
In some areas yes, and no doubt league 1 football is one of them, along with things such as films that the public see or get involved with for themselves and can comment on. But the basic question of 'what is going on in the world?' is one that takes money and staff to do well.
Do you know what most of the blogosphere is? It's someone reading something in an online article by the Guardian or Mail or whoever, and commenting on it. The blogosphere needs those first generation news networks to find the stories and get the quotes. Journalism as a paid career that involves people with sources and contacts, and who have the resources and the ability to go to the courthouse, or the scene of a natural disaster or wherever else to report and interview, is something that won't be replaced by people writing a few things in their spare time.
It also means a general amateurisation of content, which in some cases might be as good or even better than professional outlets could produce, but in most cases won't be.
Sorry S.A., not quite figured out how to quote on this site but...
I'm definitely not saying that journalism as a paid career is dead, I'm just sceptical about whether generic newspapers offer anything above freely available internet content that would justify or sustain a subscription based model. As it happens, my ex is a reasonably successful journalist, but almost all of the internet content she's created has been for advertising funded sites.
I take your point about "most" of the blogosphere being more or less uninformed recycling of other news, if you're talking about the raw number of blogs out there, but the most successful blogs in a given sector are created by informed, professional, writers who have their own networks and sources. There are also plenty of stories in paid for media that are rehashed versions of stories that have broken on the web - from mumsnet to wikileaks to KP's twitterings.
I also agree about the "what's going on in the world" type reporting needing money and staff, but this is exactly what generic newspapers have gotten a lot worse at over the years, as they've become obsessed with sport, celebrities, opinions and lifestyle features.
Similar to others on here, I have no problem with the internet being a commercial place. If a website offers a service or expert content that isn't freely available elsewhere then I'm happy to pay for it. If somebody thinks News International's output is worth paying for then that's up to them, just as if people want to pay for Microsoft Office when they could download OpenOffice for nothing then it's entirely their choice.
In the dark days of my early concerted but furtive fumbles in the net, over twelve years ago, the web seemed to be full of state sponsored extremely biased historical judgement. It makes me laugh when I meet 'History' proffessors who criticise Wikipedia for ruining history.
As time has gone on a quick check of a Wickipedia article will tell you how well researched it is from various sources. Yet these 'History' proffessors were recommending books to me full of appallingly researched hearsay when was I first at Uni. Humans associate and accept the historical sources that assimilate to their personally held paradigms. The internet provides a wealth of source material that enable us to make our own decisions; no doubt influenced by our own personal paradigms. Leaving aside tabloids, unfotunately the majority of news broadsheet journalists are so ill equipped to present the stories past a simple polemic of one opinion against another I ain't really bothered about 'pro's' losing their jobs; that's even leaving aisde the fact they present absolute truth and not the contradictory parts of the research/view their writing on.
Comments
Am I the only one to see the significance of this statement?
: - )
Everything will end up that way in the end[/quote]
Am I the only one to see the significance of this statement?
: - )[/quote]
Not now!
That is why I listed the FT, which started charging about eight years ago. People need to read the FT, and their website is excellently managed and tandamed well with their print output; the videos they have are often of great interest with many of the interesting players that you rarely see in mainstream media. I'm not quite sure why you make a mystery moral viewpoint to be my own; in some attempt to counter my opinions, that aren't even myne anyway. The FT makes more money from it's content than it does advertising, mainly through it's successfull online charges being a driver for profits. The FT earns almost as much in turnover on it's own as the whole of Assoc Newspapers; and I'd suppose the Daily Mail only makes money online via advertising as it's online site is just one up from an online Nuts. Online Paywalls work, when the content and delivery is desirable to their customer.
I really don't need simplistic Islington pop-psychology comment from an intelligent man such as David Mitchell. To make a moral debate when really all there is to prove if you're right is revenue streams, shows yet again lazy polemic journalism. He completely ignores the reality and history of the situation, in order to find the 'truth' through ill-researched moral ping-pong.
Sorry Colin we seem to have a misunderstanding. I know you didn't say he was evil, I did. It was a light hearted segue (you do realise I don't actually think he's a devil) to what I thought was an interesting article.
In hindsight probably shouldn't have quoted you, and perhaps that's where the misunderstanding arose. I just saw the words 'scum' and 'Murdoch' and thought I'd make my own point about this being about more than the quality of the Times, and more about the paywall in general.
I actually agree with most of your post! I'm not trying to 'counter' it.
And whilst I didn't see the segue, I did realise you don't think he's a devil. Now my dear departed Nan, I do think she saw it in biblical terms. Use to have to throw away the anti Murdoch stickers every time we visited!
I disagree.
In some areas yes, and no doubt league 1 football is one of them, along with things such as films that the public see or get involved with for themselves and can comment on. But the basic question of 'what is going on in the world?' is one that takes money and staff to do well.
Do you know what most of the blogosphere is? It's someone reading something in an online article by the Guardian or Mail or whoever, and commenting on it. The blogosphere needs those first generation news networks to find the stories and get the quotes. Journalism as a paid career that involves people with sources and contacts, and who have the resources and the ability to go to the courthouse, or the scene of a natural disaster or wherever else to report and interview, is something that won't be replaced by people writing a few things in their spare time.
It also means a general amateurisation of content, which in some cases might be as good or even better than professional outlets could produce, but in most cases won't be.
I'm definitely not saying that journalism as a paid career is dead, I'm just sceptical about whether generic newspapers offer anything above freely available internet content that would justify or sustain a subscription based model. As it happens, my ex is a reasonably successful journalist, but almost all of the internet content she's created has been for advertising funded sites.
I take your point about "most" of the blogosphere being more or less uninformed recycling of other news, if you're talking about the raw number of blogs out there, but the most successful blogs in a given sector are created by informed, professional, writers who have their own networks and sources. There are also plenty of stories in paid for media that are rehashed versions of stories that have broken on the web - from mumsnet to wikileaks to KP's twitterings.
I also agree about the "what's going on in the world" type reporting needing money and staff, but this is exactly what generic newspapers have gotten a lot worse at over the years, as they've become obsessed with sport, celebrities, opinions and lifestyle features.
Similar to others on here, I have no problem with the internet being a commercial place. If a website offers a service or expert content that isn't freely available elsewhere then I'm happy to pay for it. If somebody thinks News International's output is worth paying for then that's up to them, just as if people want to pay for Microsoft Office when they could download OpenOffice for nothing then it's entirely their choice.
I'd say they're mental, but hey ho ;-)
Thanks for linking this site. Brilliant and so true.
The iphone video on the second page is spot on!
As time has gone on a quick check of a Wickipedia article will tell you how well researched it is from various sources. Yet these 'History' proffessors were recommending books to me full of appallingly researched hearsay when was I first at Uni. Humans associate and accept the historical sources that assimilate to their personally held paradigms. The internet provides a wealth of source material that enable us to make our own decisions; no doubt influenced by our own personal paradigms. Leaving aside tabloids, unfotunately the majority of news broadsheet journalists are so ill equipped to present the stories past a simple polemic of one opinion against another I ain't really bothered about 'pro's' losing their jobs; that's even leaving aisde the fact they present absolute truth and not the contradictory parts of the research/view their writing on.