Your tasks are as follows:
1) Summarise each section in one sentence:
- Section 1 (To all of the bystanders reading this…)
- That content matters and that we should make people pay for it.
- Section 2 (Truth is, a halting movement toward...)
- People May not pay for something they have accepted to be free.
- Section 3 (Beyond Mr. Sulzberger and Ms. Weymouth…)
- Subscriptions for online newspaper is required to make a profit.
- Section 4 (For the industry, it is later than it should be…)
- It may be late to start making a chnge but beginning the change will make some difference
2) Summarise David Simon’s overall argument in 250 words.
- His overall argument is basically that newspaper should start thinking about making people pay somehow for their news, like online subscriptions in order to save the currently rapidly dying media. Readers are less likely to pay for something that they have accepted as free. There has been cuts in regional/chain-owned newspapers and also there are more people reading American newspaper. Television place importance on content in the fact that you pay more, you get more. His main argument is the fact that newspapers should all put forth the paywall in order to ensure a change in their revenues and see some change for the better.
3) The New York Times added a paywall in 2011 - two years after David Simon's essay. Read this summary of the New York Times's paywall - why does the writer suggest the NYT's paywall was successful?
- The writer suggests that the NYT's paywall was successful because of the fact that they offer quality content and that this is what their readers are now looking at subscribing to the news outlet. To continue to grow this subscriber based reader is to maybe start looking into niche subscriptions so that audiences can pay smaller figures for specific news.
4) The Washington Post followed with its own paywall in 2013. Read this article about the launch of the Post's paywall. List one strength and one weaknesses of newspaper paywalls that the article discusses.
FOR - 'those willing to pay for content are a more valuable audience to advertisers.'
AGAINST - after a wall goes up, pageviews and uniques go down
5) Read this Guardian comment by AC Grayling piece on the state of journalism that was published the year before David Simon's essay. What references to new and digital media can you find in AC Grayling's argument? Overall, do you feel the comment piece is positive or negative about the influence of new/digital media on the newspaper industry?
- references to new and digital media can be seen when they talk about blogging and the comment threads. There are some negative comment on the piece on the sense that it talks about how a lot of information gets spread around the world that gets spread around very quickly sometimes it being private information that doesn't need to be spread. However, it isn't entirely negative and that a positive is that it allows a lot of opinions and debates to be spoken more freely.
6) Finally, what is your own opinion? Do you agree that newspapers need to put online content behind a paywall in order for the journalism industry to survive? Would you be willing to pay for news online? Critical autonomy is the key skill in A2 Media - you need to be able form opinions on these issues.
- I think that it is a good idea in order for the journalism industry to survive. In my opinion I think that if people can pay a subscription fee for things like Netflix then there is no harm in getting people to pay for news. Since everything is becoming more digital, it is important for the journalism industry to adapt to the changes in order to be able to make a profit and in order to continue further on in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment