|
July 18, 2010
Joy Lo Dico at Prospect says that if we value good journalism, then we pay for it. According to Lo Dico that is Murdoch's challenge to internet users and consumers of news. The context is that our local and regional papers are withering away; regional television and radio news is hopelessly inadequate and our national papers are making losses that probably cannot be sustained for much longer. Hence Murdoch's paywall.
I have no problem with the general principle. However, it is not a simple either or: paying for news in opposition to the wider web ethos of “free”--- the idea that the internet should be an Eden where knowledge can be exchanged without a price attached.
My problems emerge with Murdoch's practice. He does not deliver good journalism, or to put it in market terms, a quality product. For instance, what is offered in Australian is partisan journalism of a conservative nature that is directed at undermining a Labor government. Why should I pay for that, even from The Australian, even if it is Australia's only national newspaper?
Lo Dico has a response to this kind of criticism:
So regardless of objections to Murdoch, there is every reason to hope that his scheme works—and you should support his paywalls on your blog, with your tweets and, most importantly, your credit cards.
It is undeniable that the business model for daily printed newspapers is in deep trouble, it is a crisis the media should solve. It is up to the various publishers to decide whether they need to go behind pay wall, or how they decide to make content operations profitable. If a newspaper decides to have a paywall, then the visits to the websites will drop off----by two thirds for The Times; and it may well be the case that we have the emergence of a journalism that may not require giant media corporation involvement.
As a consumer I buy what I consider to meet my taste, desires and needs. I have no obligation as a consumer in the information market to support Murdoch. I’ve got no problems with Murdoch creating a pay wall. It may well work for him, and it may keep his business operations in place and profitable My criticism with Murdoch is the way he thinks that the internet work: ie ., his belief that all newspapers can act in unison to keep their stories away and force users to pay, which just isn’t feasible and ignores the competitive nature of the news market.
This leads News Ltd to attack the ABC (and the BBC) because they are competitors who provide the news free. Mathew Lynn at the Sydney Morning Herald says:
It's too late to start charging for newspapers online. The content isn't good enough, and newspapers themselves are a product of technologies that simply don't work in a digital economy. All Murdoch is going to achieve with this move is to kill off one of the most famous media brands in the world.
That's Murdoch's problem. My problem is that his product is not worth the price he is asking----his newspapers have placed too little emphasis on substance, and too much on entertaining and exciting their readers. In contrast, As Tony Moore points out:
The ABC is grappling with how to transform itself from a paternalistic public broadcaster catering to a loyal if passive audience to a multi-channel narrow-caster, engaging diverse and conditional audiences that have an expectation that they will participate, or at least be consulted, in content creation.
They do have a sense of what the digital future might be.
|
"Good' journalism should be the norm.
Other journalism should be rejected as simply unacceptable and have a value of zero [or less], whatever 'value' is taken to mean in this context, therefore there is no need to presume we 'should'pay more for what should be the current existing norm.