THIS IS THE BEST JOURNALISM MONEY CAN BUY
Apr. 1st, 2010 02:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogITEM: News Corp titan Rupert Murdoch has begun making good on his promise to force readers to pay for his online news, starting with the The Times and The Sunday Times, which will start charging money in June.
Which I mention largely because (1) Murdoch has argued that he’s justified in building a paywall because journalism doesn’t pay for itself, and people will pay for distinctive high-quality journalism, (2) Murdoch also owns UK tabloids The Sun and News Of The World, the latter of which runs high-quality journalism like this:
Indeed. Reporting of that caliber can’t possibly be done on the cheap.
DISCLAIMER/FULL DISCLOSURE: As someone employed in the journalism business, I do understand the argument for charging access fees for news. Web ads really don’t generate all that much money, and running a global news organization is expensive.
Mind you, that doesn’t mean I think Murdoch’s implementation of it will work, if only because previous attempts by others have failed, and the concept that you can make more money by charging subscription fees doesn't really add up when you do the math. But that’s his problem, not mine.
BONUS TRACK: That box story about the woman who can only have sex outdoors is here, if you really want to read it. And you do, if you like yr journalism hard and in-depth (wink wink, nudge nudge, etc etc) like me. Mmmm yes.
Making it pay,
This is dF
Which I mention largely because (1) Murdoch has argued that he’s justified in building a paywall because journalism doesn’t pay for itself, and people will pay for distinctive high-quality journalism, (2) Murdoch also owns UK tabloids The Sun and News Of The World, the latter of which runs high-quality journalism like this:
Indeed. Reporting of that caliber can’t possibly be done on the cheap.
DISCLAIMER/FULL DISCLOSURE: As someone employed in the journalism business, I do understand the argument for charging access fees for news. Web ads really don’t generate all that much money, and running a global news organization is expensive.
Mind you, that doesn’t mean I think Murdoch’s implementation of it will work, if only because previous attempts by others have failed, and the concept that you can make more money by charging subscription fees doesn't really add up when you do the math. But that’s his problem, not mine.
BONUS TRACK: That box story about the woman who can only have sex outdoors is here, if you really want to read it. And you do, if you like yr journalism hard and in-depth (wink wink, nudge nudge, etc etc) like me. Mmmm yes.
Making it pay,
This is dF
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 2010-04-01 09:12 am (UTC)First of all, the £1 per day or £2 for a week for online subscription is way too expensive. Second of all, Times is not a niche/specialised newspaper like the "Financial Times", you can get the same content from various free sources. And third, anyone who have gone the Times website will tell you their design, content, ease of use is not as good as Guardian or Telegraph or BBC websites, all free. And also the amount of personal details you have to fill in to sign up for the online subscription? crazy.