From
CampaignLive.co.uk:
Quote:
Speaking at an event hosted by digital agency Albion, (Alan) Rusbridger, editor-in-chief of The Guardian, outlined his vision of the role that journalists and newspapers will play in an internet-led future, and took another sideswipe at Murdoch's "dubious" business model...
The editor-in-chief was also vociferous about the "open" model of the internet and the philosophy of "do what you do best and link to the rest".
|
Rusbridger believes the free and open nature of the web is inviolable, and anyone who disobeys that nature is doomed to failure. So far, only a small amount of content has managed to remain behind paywalls on the web. But will it always be that way? Magazines and other periodicals envision the continuance of the subscription system, as well as paying for individual issues (possibly individual articles). They see no other way they can survive in the long run. Are they wrong?
In other industries and media, compelling content and attractive presentation (and sometimes the threat of being shut out if you disobey the rules) is enough to justify individuals' paying for content. It works wonderfully in the cable industry, for instance. Is there some reason this cannot be true for web media as well? The answer may well impact the amount and quality of the content we can expect out of the web, and out of periodicals that transition to the web.