When the Unthinkable becomes real
I have just read Clay Shirky's views on "Newspapers and thinking the Unthinkable". In his blog, he argues that the unthinkable scenario of newspapers dying because of the rise of the internet is already a reality - it is just a question of how we cope and adapt to these changes for journalism to survive.
Take media mogul Rupert Murdoch's rant, for example. He is not amused, that the internet provides news content for free, and is eager to charge readers for News Ltd's content. Murdoch even went so far as to call search engines plagiarists, for linking his headlines to the search and getting visitors to his websites. Something's not right there! Just like iTunes uses micropayments for their content, newspapers should follow suit. But, according to Shirky, these models only work when the provider can avoid competitive business models. The New York Times has tried twice before to charge for their content, with QPass and TimesSelect, but those models must obviously have failed, because their content is now free for everyone to read!
I can can see, however, where both Clay Shirky and Rupert Murdoch are coming from. Murdoch, who made his fame and (most importantly) fortune by selling news, doesn't want to let "his" content get out of hand. To him, internet users should pay for the privilege of reading the news. All it would take for him to stop Google accessing his content, is a little line of html code on his websites, that will keep crawler bots away. But then again, who would read his news, if they weren't specifically looking for it? Google News and other such websites give their users a digest of headlines that might be of interest to them, and then go on to send those users to the respective websites to read the full content. That does not count as copyright infringement! That would be like sueing the library lady for pointing out where a specific book can be found!
Shirky argues that news providers saw the internet coming and taking over, and reacted too late. A decade ago, the use of the internet began spreading and users from the general public picked up on it. We are now so used to free content, that we don't see why we should suddenly start paying for the privilege.
The problem is, that there is no new model for journalism. We all just have to adapt. Although newspaper sales might decrease, there will still be readers buying the hard copy. Especially when it comes to local news and general interest. And I personally think it would look stupid if we all sat around the Saturday/Sunday breakfast table with our laptops out, reading our way through the internet, instead of passing the Sports/Business/Entertainment sections around. I can understand why we pay for newspapers. After all, they have to be printed, and ink and paper in those quantities cost a fair amount of money. And yes, every journalist, whether he/she is working for print or online, wants to get paid. The problem is in the advertising revenue. It is far easier, and more people read the ads, when they are posted on the web. But I know I'd still be looking for an ad of my local car dealership in my local paper first.
I guess we will have to see what happens. Experiment a bit. As Shirky points out: "Experiments are only revealed in retrospect to be turning points." I agree with him on the point that society does not necessarily need newspapers. But what it will always need is journalism. And for it to be available to the public. I don't think that charging for the content is the right or best solution Ruoert Murdoch came up with. If Google cut all of his content off the search engines for a month, I am sure that Murdoch's sites will have less visitors than anticipated. An his Australian blog, Peter Ricci gives Rupert Murdich a little primer on how search engines work. The comments that blog received, suggest that Murdoch should let the next generation, the digital-savvy generation take over, before it's too late.
I don't know about you, but I suddenly have images of a man in my head. His name was William McMaster Murdoch (aptly enough), and he was the First Officer on board the Titanic, who saw the iceberg too late and who's actions led the safest ship in the world to sink....
Now that's something to think about.
Take media mogul Rupert Murdoch's rant, for example. He is not amused, that the internet provides news content for free, and is eager to charge readers for News Ltd's content. Murdoch even went so far as to call search engines plagiarists, for linking his headlines to the search and getting visitors to his websites. Something's not right there! Just like iTunes uses micropayments for their content, newspapers should follow suit. But, according to Shirky, these models only work when the provider can avoid competitive business models. The New York Times has tried twice before to charge for their content, with QPass and TimesSelect, but those models must obviously have failed, because their content is now free for everyone to read!
I can can see, however, where both Clay Shirky and Rupert Murdoch are coming from. Murdoch, who made his fame and (most importantly) fortune by selling news, doesn't want to let "his" content get out of hand. To him, internet users should pay for the privilege of reading the news. All it would take for him to stop Google accessing his content, is a little line of html code on his websites, that will keep crawler bots away. But then again, who would read his news, if they weren't specifically looking for it? Google News and other such websites give their users a digest of headlines that might be of interest to them, and then go on to send those users to the respective websites to read the full content. That does not count as copyright infringement! That would be like sueing the library lady for pointing out where a specific book can be found!
Shirky argues that news providers saw the internet coming and taking over, and reacted too late. A decade ago, the use of the internet began spreading and users from the general public picked up on it. We are now so used to free content, that we don't see why we should suddenly start paying for the privilege.
The problem is, that there is no new model for journalism. We all just have to adapt. Although newspaper sales might decrease, there will still be readers buying the hard copy. Especially when it comes to local news and general interest. And I personally think it would look stupid if we all sat around the Saturday/Sunday breakfast table with our laptops out, reading our way through the internet, instead of passing the Sports/Business/Entertainment sections around. I can understand why we pay for newspapers. After all, they have to be printed, and ink and paper in those quantities cost a fair amount of money. And yes, every journalist, whether he/she is working for print or online, wants to get paid. The problem is in the advertising revenue. It is far easier, and more people read the ads, when they are posted on the web. But I know I'd still be looking for an ad of my local car dealership in my local paper first.
I guess we will have to see what happens. Experiment a bit. As Shirky points out: "Experiments are only revealed in retrospect to be turning points." I agree with him on the point that society does not necessarily need newspapers. But what it will always need is journalism. And for it to be available to the public. I don't think that charging for the content is the right or best solution Ruoert Murdoch came up with. If Google cut all of his content off the search engines for a month, I am sure that Murdoch's sites will have less visitors than anticipated. An his Australian blog, Peter Ricci gives Rupert Murdich a little primer on how search engines work. The comments that blog received, suggest that Murdoch should let the next generation, the digital-savvy generation take over, before it's too late.
I don't know about you, but I suddenly have images of a man in my head. His name was William McMaster Murdoch (aptly enough), and he was the First Officer on board the Titanic, who saw the iceberg too late and who's actions led the safest ship in the world to sink....
Now that's something to think about.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 Kommentare:
Post a Comment