Murdoch's paywalls are 'antithetical to everything' claims Guardian's Rusbridger

[DawnFalcon]

I don't see your point. At all. No money is involved, and that's the end of it.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Then I guess it's been nice talking to you.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

The web is rife with pay content. People will pay for content they want, if they consider it worth having. And if you read the first post, you'll note that I wasn't only referring to general news content, but magazine and periodical "specialty" content as well. Based on the evidence, there seems every reason to expect that people can get used to paying for content they want... even when they don't really want to pay for it (because, after all, who really wants to pay for anything?... but somehow, people make money off of us).

Perhaps general news sites will have the hardest time establishing paywalls compared to other types of sites... but I don't see it as impossible, if their customers believe they are getting a quality site that speaks to them and filters out the noise they don't want to hear. In essence, this is the promise of all specialty sites, and the reason people are willing to pay to get them.

Most newspapers here have a paywall. It works, because they have a free front. If you want to read some headlines, don't pay, if you want the in-depth articles, you will have to pay for them. And that's where I think it will be going. Information will stay free, but detailed information won't. It's just the finding of a good balance that will take some time.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Then I guess it's been nice talking to you.

Oh yes, because I support citizen journalism, and we don't want to allow money issues to become involved in one network I'm a part of - because it causes distortions which cannot easily be compensated for - you're ...what, putting me on ignore?

Shill for big media harder.

Sweatpea - That makes citizen journalism even easier. You can pull the key terms to search for from the basic article.

[Sparrow]

This week's edition of the BBC TV programme 'Click' discussed this issue.

One view was that niche publications could continue to offer free content and be funded by advertising. They had an example of a news site for journalists that was paid for by recruitment advertising.

"A group of young entrepreneurs is already carving out a niche with stories and advice on opportunities for journalists and journalism.
Journalism.co.uk is a free and independent online publishing company that funds itself through advertising."

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Oh yes, because I support citizen journalism, and we don't want to allow money issues to become involved in one network I'm a part of - because it causes distortions which cannot easily be compensated for - you're ...what, putting me on ignore?

Shill for big media harder.

Steve does seem to be playing 'gotcha!'

As though admitting you'd pay for some content means you'd willingly pay for Murdoch's content. Or all content, or something.

I think he needs to go drink another cup of coffee and calm down.

I think belonging to a citizen's network that disallows either paying or receiving pay for one's work is quite admirable. Bet if someone in that network began shilling for the politicians, they'd get called on it. Certainly better than the 'reliable' media Steve seems to be shilling for.

[ficbot]

We have a free commuter newspaper here in paper---so if internet 'news' became a paywall, I could just get it for free in print. They pay for the paper based on advertising dollars. With nearly every subway commuter picking up a copy, it's a pretty good market.

I am not averse to paying for more in-depth, magazine-type packages. But for just general 'news' like who won which Olympic medals or local event-type stories, I really can't see any incentive to pay when I can get it for free, and not just on-line.

I think this is the same mistake the book publishers are making---they are concentrating so hard on the one option (i.e. the ebook) that they are failing to take into account other options the customer has---the free commuter paper, in this case (I know the people who do ours have similar papers in other cities) or for books, the mass-market paperback, the used bookstore etc.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Oh yes, because I support citizen journalism, and we don't want to allow money issues to become involved in one network I'm a part of - because it causes distortions which cannot easily be compensated for - you're ...what, putting me on ignore?

No, I just think he is saying let's agree to disagree. That's all.

BOb

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by ficbot

We have a free commuter newspaper here in paper---so if internet 'news' became a paywall, I could just get it for free in print. They pay for the paper based on advertising dollars. With nearly every subway commuter picking up a copy, it's a pretty good market.

I am not averse to paying for more in-depth, magazine-type packages. But for just general 'news' like who won which Olympic medals or local event-type stories, I really can't see any incentive to pay when I can get it for free, and not just on-line.

So have we. And it has some nice little stories but hardly any in-depth. You'll have to buy a "real" newspaper for that. So, it already works for paper, why shouldn't it work for internet?

I will never pay for the global news, but I would pay for in-depth stories. Behind the scenes, background information...

And what's wrong with citizen's journalism? Who cares if they pick out keywords from a free short news item? The more you spread news, the better.

And what does this shilling mean?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

And what does this shilling mean?

It's just an attempt to belittle me because I don't happen to agree with someone's point of view.

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

It's just an attempt to belittle me because I don't happen to agree with someone's point of view.

Really, Steve, go drink some coffee. Now you're just whining.

To answer the question, from dictionary.com - shill

noun

1.a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.

2.a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

–verb (used without object)

3.to work as a shill: He shills for a large casino.

–verb (used with object)

4.to advertise or promote (a product) as or in the manner of a huckster; hustle: He was hired to shill a new TV show.

What we're saying is that Steve is too enthusiastic in his support for paysites, to the point of seeming self-serving. I think he's being naive, too, as he seems to think that big news organizations are more honest and in-depth than small ones. They aren't - as the run-up to the Iraq war should show anyone who was paying attention.

He's also showing a bit of a condescending attitude, which is ticking people off, but that's another matter.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by khalleron

Really, Steve, go drink some coffee. Now you're just whining...
What we're saying is that Steve is too enthusiastic in his support for paysites, to the point of seeming self-serving. I think he's being naive, too, as he seems to think that big news organizations are more honest and in-depth than small ones. They aren't - as the run-up to the Iraq war should show anyone who was paying attention.

He's also showing a bit of a condescending attitude, which is ticking people off, but that's another matter.

Just as you and others are clearly enthusiastic for non-pay sites, including projecting the attitude that anyone who supports or appreciates pay services, in any way, must be clueless and not worth listening to. In other words, I'm not the only one who sounds condescending, nor are you the only ones in danger of being ticked off. Maybe you should try some tea. I take 2 sugars, myself. (Coffee's for wimps.)

I didn't start this thread to discuss the relative honesty, trustworthiness and quality of paid versus free sites... that opinion was forced upon this thread by others, many of whom clearly have issues with established professional news services, which is their right. I note that, while we have taken the effort to name mainstream news services, we have not singled out any "citizen journalism" services to compare and contrast to, leaving the discussion severely one-sided. (And NO, let's not start now.)

However... this thread, in point of fact, is about discussing whether or not the web is all about 100% free content, as Rusbridger suggests, and as I have disagreed. As the discussions about other news services, however on-or off-topic, have obviously resulted in a standoff (hey... it is MR, after all... these things happen), and as I have no interest in antagonizing MR members any further (always my intent... though I wish I could say the feeling was always mutual), I suggest we move on, and get back to the original subject at-hand.

[HarryT]

Surely the web is "big enough" for both free AND pay sites? It's not a case of "one or the other", in my mind.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

It seems to me that the web has already demonstrated that free and paid sites can coexist, in many cases one supporting and driving business to the other. Not only is this very symbiotic, but it provides choices and options for consumers.

[RedHeadPeter]

Originally Posted by Richard Herley

He would say that, wouldn't he, since his paper is in competition with the Times.

The Guardian is losing money and is only being supported by other titles in GMG's stable -- notably Auto Trader magazine. I have no brief for News International, but someone, somewhere, has to pay the salaries of newspaper staff if such a thing as a newspaper is still to exist. If it isn't, then Rusbridger should have the honesty to say so and shut the Guardian down.

As a matter of fact, given much of its content, I wouldn't mind if he just shut it down anyway.

And what would that leave you with? The Daily Mail? The Times - owned by the same guy who owns that paragon of fair reporting, Fox News? The Times also, by the way, loses money. Shut The Guardian and we're left in a dark place where truth lies only in the hands of those who sold their souls to the devil.