Posts tagged new media
“ Murdoch startled the publishing world when he uttered a few sentences that were as simple as they were revolutionary, such as: “Quality journalism isn’t cheap.” That led to his decision to start charging for online use of his many newspapers around the globe in the coming months. If Murdoch has his way, the days of free culture on the Internet will be numbered.”
I think this, and the paragraph that precedes it in the article, show more than anything that Rupert Murdoch’s days are numbered - the same goes for all of the people that think like him and don’t understand the role of “free” as the business model for this century.
Murdoch reminds me of an aging record company exec, shaking his fist at those “rapscallions” that he thinks will be the downfall of the music industry. What he doesn’t realize is that journalism, just like the music industry, is not going anywhere - it’s just transforming. The problem is that while no one knows yet what it’s transforming into, those like Murdoch are trying to hold on to the old ways, completely ignorant of what’s actually going on.
Murdoch underestimates the power of those of us who have grown up barely remembering a time before the Internet (or even the younger generation, who really don’t remember a pre-WWW existence). As this generation comes into power, these old models will be thrown out the window, no matter how hard those like Murdoch cling onto them.
“ But no one yet has unlocked the puzzle of supporting a large newsroom purely on digital revenue, a fact that may presage an era of news organizations that are smaller, weaker and less able to fulfill their traditional function as the nation’s watchdog.”
For Papers, a Downsizing Trickle Becomes a Flood - NYTimes.com
Continuing on this topic, the only viable solution for the survival of newspapers is microcharging.
Solely relying on ad revenue to run a newspaper is not only unprofitable (and obviously not working), but it is damaging to the entire industry, as editors are forced to please the advertisers rather than please (and inform) the public.
Despite appearances, people will pay (a fair price) for good journalism. We need to return to a model of payment for quality, rather than an expectation of things being free or for the “common good”. The only rational way to do this on the Internet is to start charging readers a fair and reasonable rate, either on a per-article basis, or on a subscription basis, the same way one could subscribe to a newspaper or buy one that day.
I’d even go as far as saying that the current print/online model should be reversed: print should be free, while online content should be paid for. After all, what’s more valuable? The printed paper, while great to touch and smell and hold over coffee, is still discarded daily. If you want to share an article with your friend, you have to physically bring them your issue of the paper (or much more likely, find the same article online and e-mail it to them). If you want to find an old article, you have to dig through your trash pile, unless it’s already gone. Whereas online, everything is archived, everything is sharable with a few clicks, and those using an article for research can copy and paste a quote straight into their essay, no re-typing necessary. If newspapers were to make enough to cover their costs entirely from their online readers, they could print a set number of physical newspapers as a kind of marketing tool, in the hopes that someone who picks up a free copy of their paper at the grocery store will eventually become an online subscriber.
The main obstacle to this model that I foresee is the mp3 phenomenon: people find a way to share content for free (and copy-pasting text is much easier than ripping a CD). But the solution to this is the iTunes model - make the articles so affordable that trying to get them for free seems unnecessary. Also, just as music fans understand that by buying an artist’s album, they are supporting them and allowing them to continue to make music, readers would understand that by paying for articles, they are supporting journalists and newspapers as a whole, and allowing them to continue to present objective journalism that is unhindered by a need to please advertisers/cater to the lowest common denominator.
too short, too shallow
I’m not a fan of the recent “write anything quickly” microblogging webvelution. Status updates on Facebook. Twitter. And most recently, Musebin, which does exactly what its slogan says: “1 line music news and reviews.”
There is a reason parents tell kids, “Think before you speak.” They should be told “Think before you write” as well. I have no problem with brevity itself. Many writers would do well to keep their verbosity in check. Many people should not write at all. But when everyday human expression is reduced to one-liners, something essential is lost: deep thought.
My beef with Musebin goes even further back. Reviews that state, “Chinese Democracy: What a piece of fucking shit.” (about the latest Guns N’ Roses album, which I agree with, but that’s not the point) or “A wonderful hodge-podge of harmonies, beats, noodling and ambient noise” (about the latest Animal Collective, or just about any electro-ambient album to come out in the last 25 years), have absolutely no practical use to a music fan.
And that’s not counting the complete uselessness of reviews like this: “makes me waiting for the tour” (about Wire’s Object 47).
It’s just a collective of people shouting their opinions, hoping to be noticed by as many human eyes as possible, on a forum where everyone is writing but no one is even reading anyway.
You’re much better off going through a list of new releases, downloading them, and deciding on your own whether to keep (and/or buy) the music or not. And if it’s really, really good and you want others to listen to the album, you tell your friends - or better yet, play it for them.
The point is that not everyone should give their opinion on music. Just as not everyone should give their opinion on every subject, or all the time. There’s a reason academics or journalists get the opinions of experts when researching a subject, and not the opinions of Joe the Plumb… oh, wait.
Eventually people will get tired of posting updates every two minutes. Eventually other people will get tired of reading about you feeding your dog or washing your car. And this e-fad will pass and hundreds more will take its place but the damage will already be done.
When there are more writers than readers, and 90% of the writers have nothing of value to contribute, it becomes increasingly difficult to find the 10% who do.
