Section 2 (Truth is, a halting movement toward...) - The internet has been mislead by the audience and is thought to many of the users as a mere advertising opportunity.
Section 3 (Beyond Mr. Sulzberger and Ms. Weymouth) - This section talks about the different news industries having putting a subscription setting for people to view their content but also comparing the larger companies to the less.
Section 4 (For the industry, it is later than it should be) - The final section is talking about the different ways that the two news industries 'The Times' and 'The Post' can survive.
2) The article itself is about a man, by the name of David Simon, who talks in about how the option of using pay wall can potentially destroy companies. As everyone knows, the internet is taking over the print media platform which has seen a great decrease in the revenue for the news industry (less newspapers are being sold). Therefore, since the newspapers are becoming less popular, news industries have started to make their names on the internet. However, since they're on the internet and this means that they will hardly be making an revenue which leads to their journalists not getting paid enough. At the beginning of this article, Simon talks about how the journalists aren't getting acknowledged and appreciated enough and therefore, this needs to change. So, news industries are thinking of putting their website behind a pay wall.This means that the audience will therefore have to pay in order to view the content. At the moment, the only well known news company that are doing this pay wall setting is the Sun. However, Simon talks about the risks in which this can have on the companies and what long term effects this can have on them. If the companies do put this pay wall on their websites, this can potentially decrease their revenue even more than what it already has gone down by because of the fact that the public do not want to pay for something that they believe that they're entitled to for free. In the last section of this article, David Simon talks about the different scenarios that 'The Times' and 'The Post' could potentially come to if they were deciding to build the 'pay wall'.
3) The following is what has been referenced to New and Digital media by the article:
- One is the internet and in particular the twin phenomena of blogging and interactivity it has created, by the latter meaning the comment threads that accompany most op-ed pieces posted on media websites. The other, in no small measure following from this, is the loss of trust and credibility that the media have suffered in recent years.
- Yet one can see the promise, and in fact already the presence, of a mutually positive relationship between the media and the blogosphere, chiefly in the latter's hawkeyed challenge to the former.
- There is much that is good, and something bad, about the effect the internet has had in these respects. The good concerns the massive democratisation of opinion and debate the internet has enabled, and the way it has made the world porous to information.
- The downside is the volume of rubbish, the anonymous viciousness and sneering, the ad hominem attacks, the paragraph-long pretensions to authoritativeness, the degrading of debate it freely permits, making it what I've before now called the biggest toilet wall in history.
I believe that this comment on new and digital media is linked to both positive and negatives sides. Grayling talks about how the internet is 'trash' but also talks about how the internet is good for the political debates and how many different opinions that can be found on new and digital media. The different opinions by Grayling have been shown in the bulletpoints above; Green showing positive and red showing the negative.
4) In my opinion, I believe that in order for the journalism industry to survive, online content will need to be published by paywall for them to survive. However, despite be thinking this, I still believe that online content should be free for the public to use. This is because of the fact that the public already are using it for free and this shouldn't change now;if the public that use the news online, daily, should remain that way. If the companies believe that the paywall is necessary, then it should've been added as soon as the online format of news was created. In addition, if paywall was added, it was, of course, be beneficial for the journalism industry as they will be earning money and continue working as a journalist. On the other hand, this will be a disadvantage to everyone else as they will need to pay more to view the content. Since the public already pay bills, e.g. for household equipment, mobile phones etc, I think that this would be unfair to charge them for viewing what is happening around the world. Even though the journalist industry may debate that the public already pay for other subscriptions such as Now TV etc, this wouldn't be different to anything else, I still would believe that paying for news is wrong. To conclude, if we did have to pay to view news online, I would never pay for it because I believe that it is wrong to pay for information that we should know for free as it could be effecting our lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment