This week, I would like to revisit a topic I have previously blogged about. Recently, we studied how the media affects our political culture. In a few weeks, we will discuss why media is sometimes called the fourth branch of government. The media's influence on politics has always affected how we view our politicians; from the times of the penny press, FDR's fireside chats and the televised Kennedy/Nixon debates. However, it is now possible that some major cities will soon no longer have a newspaper.
In a recent cover story, Times author Walter Issacon notes that although readership is on the rise, fewer consumers are paying. According to a Pew Research study, more people got their news online for free last year, than paid for it by buying newspapers and magazines. The newspapers, which traditionally have counted on sales from subscriptions and newsstands are now only relying on advertising dollars, thus making the content beholden to the advertisers themselves.Walter Issacon makes a case for charging for the news we access. Whether we pay an online subscription fee for the newspaper of our choice, or we are simply charged a "user fee" for each article we access, Issacon stresses that charging for content might just be the only way to save our newspapers.
You are all creative students, who produce artistic content that I am sure you would like to get paid for, yet at the same time, I am sure many of your access news for free off of the Internet. So my question to you this week is, "Do you think we should be charged for the news we access, and if so, with what kind of fee?". Answers are due no later thanMonday, August 10th, 2009 .
I think those who read their news online should be charged the same amount as a tangible newspaper fee. It's not fair for those who pay for the daily when I could turn around and get on the Daily Journal website or the Indy Star website and get the same information for free. Some news sites offer clips of the article as a preview, but require a paid subscription to view the article in its entirety, for example WWD. It is a pain to have to pay, but it is ethical.
ReplyDelete--Kristen Rice
I don't see why they shouldn't charge for their online content. It doesn't affect me because I don't watch or read american media propaganda. But I can understand how people like free stuff, and if they start charging people, initially, would be upset. But if they don't have to rely on advertiser's money, then they won't be constrained, as much at least, on what they put in the paper. But either way, the media in this country is controlled by 6 corporations, so how much do they want for online content? In theory, you can access more information online than a news paper, so I would think a yearly subscription.
ReplyDelete-Nicholas Alexander
I was just talking about this the other with someone about comic books. People are going to read articles online it is convenient and it saves paper. They should make it all online in my opinion. You should subscribe and have the option to be mailed the actual paper if desired.
ReplyDeleteNew technology always will be preferred. Newspapers is part of our history. but like any form of media or communication it has evolved. I think on the simple fact of by converting from newspaper to online you would be saving paper is enough reason.
I think that it is absurd to think people should have to pay for the news they access. I believe that if the newspapers are losing money, and want to reverse that, then maybe they should run certain stories or a series of articles that one can subscribe to. Otherwise, people like me will continue to get the news stories I would like to read off of yahoo or NPR which is always free. its kind of like subscribing to a magazine, you can read certain stories online, but to get the in depth info you have to subscribe.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe we should be charged for the news we access online. It is a choice whether we want to receive the daily newspaper for a fee or look online at no cost. People perfer both ways and these options should be available. I agree with Dean that accessing the news online saves a lot of paper. Therefore, I feel that online news should always be free and newspapers should be an additional cost since you are using supplies to make it.
ReplyDeleteI think that there should be a charge for internet news content(but not for certain or specific info., such as: general news, advertisments, etc.). Yes, charge for 'Top Story' content, or archival news. Major newspapers should never stop being printed because; the paperboy could no longer through them on the wrong doorstep, or break your window with them; can't use them for doggie poop anymore, or to swat flies(just kidding), Ha,Ha,Ha. Hey; Let's keep newspapers around forever. It just would'nt be the same without them. Oh, I'm not sure what to charge.
ReplyDelete-Richard
Personally I receive the newspaper and look on news websites as well. I routinly am looking at the newspaper on the internet from my hometown as well as USA TODAY. I believe that as long as newspaper is producing hard copies and delievering them to your door then you shouldn't have to pay for their website. They already make money on the internet pages due to advertisers. However, when, not if, newspapers are no longer produced then I will gladly pay for a newspaper subscription through the internet. By subscribing they would be able to e-mail you the paper much like they deliever it to you now.
ReplyDeleteBeing that I have never been an avid reader of the newspaper, I would have to say as time changes, so does technology. I personally would not mind if newspaper companies decided to shut down. Granted there would be a lot of jobs lost, but hopefully those companies would provide another means of work for their employees before closing doors. I would perfer not to be charged for the news we see online if that includes every bit of news feed we could receive. We are in a reccession and no one is quite sure when our country will turn around. Not a whole lot of people, even those that have the money are really going to want to pay for daily news feed if priced. Our world would not be the same without streaming media constantly pplaying throughout our daily lives. I think that only really deep and in-depth news that could be considered "TOP SECRET or clips of What is to come" should be priced if anything at all.
ReplyDeleteEven if newspapers charged a on-line subsciption you would be able to find the news free somewhere. Maybe it's time they re-invent themselves. I get my local paper strictly for local news because of the convenience and just keeping up with what's going on here. It would be nice though if they ran a series of some type to add interest to the hard copy and they could charge for it on the internet.
ReplyDeleteFrankly I'm a little torn concerning which way this issue should go. I can see why some places are looking at doing away with the newspaper, especially when you can access the local news on line for free.
ReplyDeleteI suppose it depends on how much companies pay the newspapers to advertise their products in the paper/on line. I can't see how there would be anymore of a money loss if people didn't pay for an on line subscription. If nothing else, they should at least keep it the same price as they would for a printed news paper.
In the end, I suppose it doesn't really matter. Because the cost will come out to the tax payer and consumer anyway. If the newspaper increased costs to companies who advertise in their paper, to compensate for not charging the public. Then businesses advertising with the newspaper would only raise their prices in the end to compensate for their increase that they pay the newspaper. Either way, consumers still pays for it in the end.
I think that we should be charged for the news access. We should be charge by a user fee or subscription fee.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that there should be a fee for online news because it seems most people will find a way around it.It's a scary thought that paper newspapers may be out of circulation. I think having a paper copy documents our history and I'm not sure I trust computers to back that up. Trina Evans
ReplyDeleteLike a few other students, I find it rather scary that we may discontinue the printing of newspapers. It is my opinion that we put way too much emphasis on technology. I understand that times are changing and that we are becoming an advanced society that are tethered to our cell phones, Blackberries, computers, etc, but we can't forget the simple pleasures such as sitting and reading the paper. Maybe I am one of the last in the world that still prefers to get my news from the good old paper. I don't like to read too much on a screen so I don't read the news online. However it has come to the point that computer news is taking over and newspapers are losing money so decisions are needing to be made. If it comes to the point to where newspapers are going to no longer produce papers, I feel that there needs to be a charge for the online version. It may be the news (which can still be seen on TV as well), but it is also a business that has to make a profit. We are in a recession, but there is no such thing as a free lunch.
ReplyDeleteWith the onset of the green society, the use of paper products is on the decline. I feel that the newspaper as we know it, is a dying giant. It is much easier to access information online because almost all people in America are connected. So if I had a choice I would take my newspaper online and make the world a little greener as well as making it more convienent for me to access information.
ReplyDeleteI have never been a fan of the newspaper. I would rather get online to access the exact type of stories I want to see and read. I don't think that I would pay to read articles online but if they completely do away with newspapers then I'm sure that people would still pay to be a member. Also, no newspapers means less paper and that is a good way to start helping out our environment.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Dean said, that being able to access the news online saves paper and they should do away with the paper news unless it is requested. I definitely think they should start charging for online subscriptions though. Maybe a one year subscription that would be reasonably priced. This would help the economy by saving paper and fuel because it would not have to be delivered. I don't think we should ever do completely away with the papers though because there can be problems with the internet and technology.
ReplyDelete-Casey Frederick
I don't think we should be charged to read articles online. I read the newspaper occasionally but I would rather get online and read them. I read articles on the websites of my hometown newspaper just as much as I read the regular newspaper.
ReplyDeleteNo, we shouldn't be charged. News has always been free. Also they choose what they want to show us anyway. I'm absolutely not paying for something that is censored and bias.
ReplyDeleteI think it's very sad that we are facing a time when many newspapers may start to close down. For better or worse, and sometimes both, newspapers have been the most reliable way for people to get their local and national news for centuries. I don't know exactly what the correct answer is--- whether to charge online subscriptions or on a per article basis--- but I believe something needs to be done.
ReplyDeleteThis is more than just a dilemna involving newspapers, however. One of the problems with charging people to access the news websites is that not all the websites can charge. Even if the Chicago Tribune or the Indy Star start charging people to read their articles, people will just start getting their news for free from other ad-driven sites like Drudge Report or Real Clear Politics, sites that have never relied on subscription sales and likely never will.
On the flip side of this debate, there is reason to believe that news sites can still make money from people online. If newspapers were to go entirely electronic, then their entire readership would be forced to go onto the website. All of this traffic would generate some considerable ad revenue for the site and the newspapers would therefore be able to get quite a lot of money from ads. Whether that money from ads would be enough to outweight the loss in paper subscriptions is debatable, but at the same time it would lower costs as well. Instead of printing, shipping, and selling the newspapers, companies would only have to pay for journalists, web designers, internet security, and other relatively cheap overhead. It could possibly lower the overhead of the company by a large amount.
Regardless of what actually happens, I can only hope that newspapers stay at the forefront of how the American public gets their news.
I don't think we should have to pay for news we get online. I could see paying to get video news. The papers choose to put their material online for free, and as a result many others did too. In the business of the media, their will be always one place that will leave it for free online because they want the people to go to their site. It's just good business.
ReplyDeleteFor the newspaper business, it is sad what is happening to it. I don't think it will ever be gone, but I also said the digital transition for the televisions would never happen though, too.
-Zach Karnes
I don't believe that we should have to pay to obtain the news on the internet. A lot of people rely on getting the news fast, while at work most people who use the computer for work also check out what's going on in the world. The news paper companies decided to advertise there information on the internet for free viewing. So i think it would be wrong for them to start charging now.
ReplyDeleteNews papers will never not be needed because children will still need to use them for reports and articles for school. I just think that it would be for the news paper companies to start charging when they have been going years with it being free to the public.
I mean even if you have a television with no channels it can still access local television that you don't necessarily have to pay for so you can get your news for free that way. I don't think we should pay for online news because we're already paying to be online anyway. Nothing is free unless it's stolen.
ReplyDeleteI think it is a load of bull, to be charged a fee for online news. They could try to have a fee but there is alway going to be "that Website" you can go to for free news. I just think it is another way for the "corporations" to try to weasel out a few more dollars from the general population.
ReplyDeletein the dawn of the electric era, we should have been expected to make sacrifices. why would you charge people for being online when you can also get it for free on the tv. especially now, in a time where digital tv is mandatory, you almost have to be digitally connected to survive. so news papers may just have to suck it up because people will find the news for free somewhere else online if they start charging.
ReplyDelete- Josh Hollandsworth