In the first section the author David Simon, talks about how the internet is as we all see it as a free privilege. It allows us to access many different things which in this case he is talking about the news. The news can be seen and read through websites created and managed by newspapers themselves like the times and the sun. He also mentions how a newspaper and reading news online may not give the exact same experience as they are both different in many different ways, some negative and some positive.
Section 2 :
The second section is quite similar discussing how people are finding that buying newspapers is getting old, a bit old fashioned. People have now moved on and have started to purchase news online, however not everyone. People now prefer to access their news and to view their news online as it has many benefits to it. Furthermore most of the news online is free meaning they won't have to be paying for it. The section also discusses how the newspapers are getting more vulnerable.
Section 3 :
The third section was mostly talking about some facts and statistics that were used and mentioned in the section by the writer. This was done so that they can back up their points. For example "10 percent of the existing 210,000 Baltimore Sun readers, for example, who pay a subscription rate less than half the price of home delivery, or roughly $10, would represent about $2.5 million a year. Absent the cost of trucks, gas, paper, and presses, moneylike that represents the beginnings of a solid revenue stream"
Section 4:
In the last section of the article David talks about the risk of newspapers moving on to pay wall, making people pay for the news rather then giving it out for free online. He discusses how many of the newspapers will be following on and changing as they'll find that they won't be able to survive without paying people for their services. This is understandable due to people reading less newspapers meaning they wont be getting as much money as they once did. For them to survive them must result to putting up pay walls, as David says most newspapers will build that pay wall up.
In the article David talks about the pay wall and why newspapers would be putting up the paywall and how it would benefit both parties. he discusses why people are buying less newspapers due to new and digital media. How people are finding newspapers old-fashioned and how news online is more convenient. Which is true due to most people owning smart phones which they could access anywhere with a touch of an app. However, currently most newspapers are giving their news out for free, David says this would not be forever as they can not afford to do so due to the shortage of income the business are getting from their consumers who are the news readers.
Comment 1:
Most of the folks writing about the paywall issue are assuming that because only 5-10
percent of the current online readership will sign
up for web content, it will be a failure. Actually, the folks behind the paywall effort don't care
if anyone signs up for online content.
The entire point is to push people into print subscriptions. It could be that some newspapers
or groups won't even offer an online-only
option. It will just be a free giveaway with print.
will never pay for “news” again. Most news is not truly news - it is sensationalism, hype and
deception. Most news is not balanced - every editor is biased. And it is not just that - I truly
can not afford to pay for news. Academics, especially with tenure, got it made in the shade
and may be able to afford to follow the “news” as they are funded and it does not come out
of their pockets. The question comes down to this - do we want an informed public or not.
The answer, at least right now, is no. If the public were truly properly informed the American
people would not allow Wall Street to gut Main Street, would not believe the lies of “the
terrorists are going to destroy our way of life” and would understand that it really makes no
difference - except in perception - of who holds the title of chief cheerleader - oops I mean
Commander in Chief, President, which should be renamed CEO of America Incorporated.
Here we see Lawrence saying that he will never ever pay for news again due to him
believing that news that is published today is not truly news, he believes it's deception and
not balanced at all. He also says that he is not able to pay for news as he simply cannot
afford to pay for it. Here we see that he is against David, some people may also feel the
same way about news and may not be able to afford it if all news was to be paid for.
Comment 3:
Please do this. Authoritative resources are being lost in the wikipedia world.One mst go
around the world to find authoritative on the groud reporting. I would pay for it, no question.
Here we see a person who feels that paying is better than getting it free. Here we see a
person who values news and knows the worth and what it takes to get the news. Which is
why he believes that news should be paid for and that he does not mind paying as what
you get for free would not be as good as what you are going to pay for.
Conclusion:
I do believe that news should be paid for. Newspaper corporations should in fact put up pay
walls so that they are able to make money to pay what their audiences ask for which is in
fact great news. Since the internet came a long i believe that newspapers were not quick to
act with the change. This i must say to most of the newspapers.Now that people are so
used to getting free news they do not want to change as they like the idea of something
being free. Of course if newspapers decide to then change all of a sudden and begin to
charge for the news they provide online, most readers will not be happy. This may be due
to the fact that there is a lack of knowledge to readers knowing exactly where news comes
from and how hard people like journalists work to go and get the news readers are informed
daily about. Newsreaders take newspapers who supply free news for granted and see
those who charge for example like newcorp as them trying to rinse out as much as they can
get
from readers. People must accept that news will not be supplied to the world for free and
people will not work for these readers for free. These newspapers are business' they are
not charities. If news was to be free it would mean that great journalists would be made
redundant as news corporations would not be able to afford them. This would reduce the
quality of news which is produced due to a shortage in journalists which are professionals
at what they do. Paywalls should be put up for readers to be satisfied with the news they
are currently receiving, or else news corporations will turn into "buzzfeeds"
which dumbs down audiences through their ridiculous posts and articles which are
pointless. So in conclusion I agree with David. Yes to pay walls!
No comments:
Post a Comment