- Section 1 (To all of the bystanders reading this…)
- Section 2 (Truth is, a halting movement toward...)
- Section 3 (Beyond Mr. Sulzberger and Ms. Weymouth…)
- Section 4 (For the industry, it is later than it should be…)
2) Summarise David Simon’s overall argument in 250 words.
3) Read this Guardian comment by AC Grayling piece on the state of journalism that was published the year before David Simon's essay. What references to new and digital media can you find in AC Grayling's argument? Overall, do you feel the comment piece is positive or negative about the influence of new/digital media on the newspaper industry?
4) Finally, what is your own opinion? Do you agree that newspapers need to put online content behind a paywall in order for the journalism industry to survive? Would you be willing to pay for news online? Critical autonomy is the key skill in A2 Media - you need to be able form opinions on these issues.
1) The real audience of this article is Katherine Weymouth and Arthur Sulzberger Jr. people who have the power to save high end journalism, two people that can rescue a sinking industry, as they are at the helm of The New York Times and The Washington Post trying to find some piece with the digital revelation though they have failed so far.
2) Summarising David Simon’s argument I would say that he is saying what everybody is thinking. Something has to be done and quickly to revive the dying newspaper/media industry. He talks of how those who represent fundamental institutions such as The New York Times and The Washington Post still have an influential hand they can still help the industry. David Simon thinks that content should be paid for but content is the key, from what I understand. If the newspapers can offer us something interesting and unique then we are going to be obliged to pay for it. He says that on a specific date everybody must act together and inform readers that content will only be free to those who subscribe. David Simon states in his argument that ‘no half measures’ should be taken, no offering some articles charged and others for free, no limited availability of certain teaser articles etc. However, he does still take on board the changes that the internet has brought to the world of media as he says “ A radical revisiting of the dynamic between news-papering and the Internet, there will be little cohesive, professional, first-generation journalism at the state and local level, as your national newspapers continue to retrench and regional papers are destroyed outright.”. David Simon goes on to say how some newspapers seem to be like hybrids despite talks already having happened/happening about charging for online subscription some newspapers like those under the empire of Rupert Murdoch rethought or do not yet have an online subscription model but if everybody works together they will soon follow, in the opinion of David Simon.
Section 2: As the days go on a movement of to revive the dying newspaper world is being created, they are contemplating the idea of charging for the online distribution of news; the times and the post lead and others will simply follow.
Section 3: Many professionals in news-papering have underestimated the phenomenon of the internet and the changes that it brings to their companies, they did not look at the wider picture.
Section 4: For the newspaper industry, the transition into using the internet to distribute news has happened a lot later than it should have done.
3)
2) Summarising David Simon’s argument I would say that he is saying what everybody is thinking. Something has to be done and quickly to revive the dying newspaper/media industry. He talks of how those who represent fundamental institutions such as The New York Times and The Washington Post still have an influential hand they can still help the industry. David Simon thinks that content should be paid for but content is the key, from what I understand. If the newspapers can offer us something interesting and unique then we are going to be obliged to pay for it. He says that on a specific date everybody must act together and inform readers that content will only be free to those who subscribe. David Simon states in his argument that ‘no half measures’ should be taken, no offering some articles charged and others for free, no limited availability of certain teaser articles etc. However, he does still take on board the changes that the internet has brought to the world of media as he says “ A radical revisiting of the dynamic between news-papering and the Internet, there will be little cohesive, professional, first-generation journalism at the state and local level, as your national newspapers continue to retrench and regional papers are destroyed outright.”. David Simon goes on to say how some newspapers seem to be like hybrids despite talks already having happened/happening about charging for online subscription some newspapers like those under the empire of Rupert Murdoch rethought or do not yet have an online subscription model but if everybody works together they will soon follow, in the opinion of David Simon.
Section 2: As the days go on a movement of to revive the dying newspaper world is being created, they are contemplating the idea of charging for the online distribution of news; the times and the post lead and others will simply follow.
Section 3: Many professionals in news-papering have underestimated the phenomenon of the internet and the changes that it brings to their companies, they did not look at the wider picture.
Section 4: For the newspaper industry, the transition into using the internet to distribute news has happened a lot later than it should have done.
3)
- Twin phenomena of blogging and interactivity
- The influence of the internet as a whole on the political process
- NDM has opened up the room for democratization of opinions and debate
- How long before the internet is policed
- Freely permits debate
- Anonymous, viciousness and sneering attacks and volume of rubbish posted
- Strong presence of a positive relationship between the media and the blogosphere
Overall, at first I would have said that this piece does not sway towards one side more than the other over the influence of NDM. It takes the time to weigh up the pros and the cons of NDM on the political world. However, on reflection; i think that this article sways more towards talking about the damage the NDM has done to the newspaper industry and the political side, it states how the power of the press is weakening and therefore not holding as much influence.
4) In my opinion, with the drastic changes that NDM have presented the traditional means of media with they need to figure out a strategy quickly to keep themselves afloat which is what they have tried to do by undertaking a digital revolution and moving online (The Independent). However, I do not agree with the idea of putting content behind a paywall as being the way for the newspaper industry to survive and keep what little audience it has left. This is because, who is going to pay for receiving news when they can get printed free newspapers at train stations etc. Though, saying this the idea of going online is for the convenience it presents us with to fit in our daily/ weekly etc news read into our busy schedules which means some people may well pay for the news behind a paywall, particularly as not everybody commutes via a train station on a regular basis. Rather than a paywall, I think that newspapers could potentially strengthen themselves once more by working together with the millions of citizen journalists out there and distribute news by putting their skills together rather than resenting them for the getting to the news before they did because they do not have to go through a gate keeper. For example, citizen journalists could work with a news company and develop the piece of news they have captured into something much more which will pull in a greater audience.
Personally, I am a digital native I have grown up surrounded by the internet and therefore I have never really read printed news or for that matter paid for my news but instead I've got it online for free. If newspapers put there content behind a paywall I do not think I would pay for it unless it was something that I really wanted to read. Which I think is the opinion, that many other consumers like me would hold. We as consumers are only ever prepared to pay for. If newspaper are going to use a paywall then they need to decide on the most effective content to restrict behind a paywall which will still pull in the audience.
No comments:
Post a Comment