Recently, we studied how the media affects our political culture and why it 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 Sunday, November 14th, 2010. P.S. Thursday is Veteran's Day! To all those who serve - thank you for your sacrifice!
Well first of all I can admit that I enjoy being able to access the news online, I can't even remember the last time I touched a news paper. Its sad to me that the realization is all media is becoming digital, but it is practically here. While there are lots of advantages to "digital media" such as less paper usage and nothing to be delivered thus cutting down on gas and emissions. As far as paying for media, I honestly enjoy accessing the news for free yet I completely feel that people should be compensated for their work. I feel that the sites posting the stories should compensate their writers even perhaps according to the number of hits or views.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure which way to go on this issue. I sometimes read what the cover page of yahoo has to offer, if it interests me. I know though, I more than likely would not pay to read some of the articles I see. Most of what I read is just about entertainment or if some figurehead messed up. I do think though, the writers of these articles should be paid. I know when I open a restaurant some day, I want to be paid for what I do and not do it for free. My answer to what kind of fee should be charged for the articles, I would guess the best way to do so would be to charge a small fee for the articles that interest whom ever read the specific article. I would not want to pay for a whole news paper if all I am going to read is just one or two articles.
ReplyDeletei think they should just keep newspapers because even if they get rid of them they still technically will have them so why even try to hurt your business by putting your newspaper solely online that would be like going to a restaurant and instead of menus you have to be sent to their website to order. besides even if they get rid of the indianapolis star then if wouldnt affect me because i actually am one of the few that still watch the news on tv and i use computers as little as possible.
ReplyDeleteI think that on the line of getting my news on the internet. I haven't touch a newspaper since my last history class, when we had to get articles for the class. I really don't see why we should be charged for the news. It's like, "oh, we have some sort of big news that will end life, pay up!". Besides we also have Tv as another way of news, even if they news is altered.
ReplyDeleteSome of my family still uses a newspaper and I dont think they would like it if they got rid of them, mainly because they dont own computers. I personaly never used one for anything other than packing. If they do decide to get rid of them, they can always start charging access to their webpage.
ReplyDeleteI can kind of see both sides. My older family members are very "old school" and they still read paper newspaper and have no desire to look at it online because they don't like looking at a computer screen. I feel that it would be beneficial to the environment to get rid of them. But i don't read the news because i can watch the same thing on TV if i wanted to. Though I do believe that the people creating the website should get paid by their employer, the truth is if you had to pay to read the news on the internet then lots of people would stop going to the site. Simply because it raises the argument of " Since i pay for my internet my news should be free"
ReplyDeleteI think we should be charged to have our choice of news brought to our homes. Like newspapers, those aren't really a necessity because the stories will be on the 6 o' clock or 5 o' clock news the same day. But some people would rather have a full article than a 4 minute segment. And those people have chosen to pay for the newspaper. News on the internet is exactly that. It's the news' decision to have a website, but if we had to pay for internet access to the news, once again news on television would then be the successful back up. This sort of reminds me of a magazine article I read that said everyone doesn't like that radios only play hit singles from music artists that are relevant, and like that if you don't want to listen to the radio you'd have to pay for a CD or mp3 player. So for your choice of coverage and the kind of news you want you should have to pay for it.
ReplyDeleteI think newspapers will be forced to offer it for free. Eventually readers will be so few that even subscriptions won't cover what is needed. More and more businesses are putting flat screen TVs for their customers to watch. This provides increasingly more chances for people to see news before they can read it in a newspaper. As far as writers being paid, I think they should be compensated. It would be a hassle, but allowing more advertisements in newspapers is the only solution I see working.
ReplyDeleteThis is a difficult decision for me. This is because I can see both sides of the argument. For those who cannot afford subscriptions, the news is still vital for them to be a part of. However, Since one has to normally pay for both newspapers and access to the internet, subscribing to online newspapers may be the only solution to saving conventional newspapers. And then there are those like me, who prefer reading things on paper as opposed to information over the internet or computers!
ReplyDeleteI think that in time newspapers will be free and because we will not pay for them anymore. I have not picked up a newspaper in so long because when i log on to yahoo or msn, i get the most important issues of the day right there. I always think that if someone is doing a job for someone else to beinfit from they should be paid as well. So yes the writers should be paid.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we should be charged for viewing news on the internet because we pay for the internet, so technically we are paying for the news. Maybe some sort of agreement needs to be made between internet providers and news providers to allow the news providers to make some money for their service. Although, I imagine most news sites are already making money off of the advertisements on their pages. So no, I don't believe we should have to pay to view news on the internet(that we already pay for).
ReplyDeleteWhile I really enjoy doing print work, I wouldn't be overly disappointed if newspapers were completely gone. Far too much paper is wasted every day. My concern with losing newspapers is that to balance out the cash flow, we would have to pay for the news online. I don't think we should be charged for trying to be current in our community.
ReplyDeleteThis is a hard issue, because I one side I feel like many jobs and history would be lost if newspapers are gone for good, however they are not the "greenest" way to get news, and if the majority of people are getting news from the internet then is it profitable to keep producing them? I think that they should not be completely eliminated, I also feel that we should not be charged for news on the internet, we pay for internet service and all that comes along with. Being that news is being viewed more often from the internet, advertisers should pay more on the news sites.
ReplyDeleteI think it’s good that major cities will no longer have news paper because it’s just killing more trees. There is no need of news papers in this new high tech world. It’s better to have magazines only and charge for that if people want to buy/subscribe the magazine, but rest of the news should be free on the internet because we are already paying for the internet. People should only be charged for the news/article that they want to access is really old, and they want to refer back to that news/article, and it can be only ¢00.50 fee just for that information so it would be less fee then buying news paper.
ReplyDeletesince newspapers usually have news about the communities we live in, such as the local sports teams, local events, local car crashes/drug busts/ ect.. I feel like them charging a small fee for people to read online is nothing! They have to pay their journalist and photographers some how. This usually also gets you access to all the additional photos that the photo journalist take. We have to pay for the paper to come to our home and I dont see the difference in having to pay for it to read online! We are getting the same thing.
ReplyDeleteI guess I am old fashion.I like reading actual newspapers and books. I like to hold on to them. I don't mind paying for the $1 to $1.50. I don't think you should have to pay extra for news because you are already paying for the internet.
ReplyDeletePersonal I think it might be hard to go from having access to free news to having to pay for new. I also think that news should be free, I know a lot of people who don’t own TVs and there lab top is there only resource for information. I like watching the news daily; it’s good to be informed of what is going on in your city. Plus people deserve to be in touch with what is going on…even if they can’t be in touch with everything else.
ReplyDeleteI personally like the sunday newspaper for the ads and the other newspapers aren't that bad. I really don't mind paying for them with all the coupons and savings that come in the news paper it is worth it. I don't think that we should be charged extra for the news we access, because the newspaper is really not that much.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do enjoy accessing articles online for free, I understand how it would be frustrating for a writer to not get compensated for their work. However, I do not think that all articles online should be accessable with a fee. If you are an avid reader of news articles online then you should pay a subscription fee. The sites should monitor who is reading their articles and allow up to a certain number to be free, then after that they will have to pay a subscription. I do not follow any news regularly online so it is hard to imagine paying for it. I just look up things occasionally because most of the time I can watch cnn (which I do pay for) or another news channel. It could get expensive to pay for numerous news outlets.
ReplyDeleteIt's really hard for me to answer this question. I think that news companies should be paid for their efforts in supplying the community with information, and yet the community pays for the internet which pretty much is understood that the news is included. I don't see how the writers online are being paid if the community is viewing the news for free.
ReplyDeleteEven though I don't have the money to pay for online fees, I think they should be charged. If no one is paying for these stories that are reported, the reporters wont be able to be payed. And without the access to news we will be even more ill informed that we currently are.
ReplyDeleteI do think the news should be paid or what i mean is that it should be a fee for it, as Christofer said, so that way reporters can be a pay as well.
ReplyDelete- Chris Johnson
ReplyDeleteAdding an online subscription is perfectly acceptable. Nothing is free, and certainly not the news. There should be an online membership, however, it shouldn't cover broad topics such as global, local, and political events that may occur. Now you can branch off of a news story and give a more detailed description of what went on (aka. another article of its own) and that could be part of the subscription.
I do enjoy reading an actual newspaper from time to time but I've never had a subscription. I also think that the 24 hour news cycle is contributing to the downfall of print. I don't really see a problem with paying for your news, The Wall Street Journal makes those wishing to access their online content pay a fee; a montly subscription fee seems like the way to go. But we have grown so used to having free information that it doesn't seem like this would be a viable option for smaller local newspapers. The larger papers will probably make due though.
ReplyDeleteI feel like the newspaper is very much a dying art. But like the evolution of many things, sometimes it is necessary. The internet and tv media is so popular and so easily accessed that newspapers are simply obsolete. Im not saying all published articles are not needed, on the contrary I think that many magazines have taken the purpose of information and text and made a literal piece of artwork out of it. When I first moved to Indianapolis, it was the first time I lived on my own and got talked into having a subscription to the Indianapolis Star. I can honestly say that when I had a subscription to the Indianapolis Star, I had piles and piles of unopened newspapers to the point that I finally called and cancelled because I was simply throwing them out after they piled up on my porch for 5 days.
ReplyDeleteRecent and new information can be easily found online, as well as information to the past. Online newspapers are much more realistic. If they want to continue making newspapers I feel they will have to remain relying on advertisements to keep going. I think we should send out newspapers for ads and discounts, magazines for in depth personal articles and biography’s and use the internet and tv media for recent up to date news.
I could easily see bot sides of this situation. I am guilty of often catching what news that I do see online. It's at our fingertips at any moment. Any user could easily check out Yahoo! or Msn to acquire any headlines that they wish.
ReplyDeleteOn the other side it is hard to create revenue when so many things are given to us for free. Look at Limewire with their music accessibility. Sure they no longer are able to let users download their music for free, but there was a time when we all did it.
This is a really good question. Since the internet and what not i can honestly say that i go for news stuff and what not online. In stead of watching the news at home on tv i will get to the computer and do it there. I still read the newspaper when im at home (st. louis) with my family on sundays. we enjoy it. Each one of us has a favorite part of the paper we like and then after we just take turns with what we all like. But i can say my favorite thing about the newspaper for me is the soduku and the comics specifically get fuzzy my absolute fav!!
ReplyDeleteI think that it is economy versus us again. I think that we should all be able to access what is going on around the world, we deserve to know that. I don't believe that we should have to pay for that. But people become writers and pay for education, so since this has become a career. Yes I think that we would pay a small fee. Maybe it be included in the taxes we pay, and then the income of these careers be based on that, not which paper or website sells the best. The news should not be biased. We should hear the truth as it is.
ReplyDeleteI feel as if it will become a huge controversy if people have to pay any kind of user fee for getting news. In saying this who is to say which articles and websites that provide certain kinds of news, have precedent over any other site. If newspapers aren't being bought then maybe they need to make them even more informational like the internet. Anyone can click away on the internet and find anything they need these days basically for free except for what there internet bill is every month. So after trying to make my point all I am trying to say is simply that I don't think newspaper companies should be able to charge a fee for the internet newspaper if most other websites aren't able to charge for their usage.
ReplyDeleteNews isn't free. I can't see people paying to view news on top of what we already pay. Either we pay to view news on the internet (since we already pay for internet access) or by buying and owning a TV or we pay a for a subscription to the newspaper.
ReplyDeleteAs it is, I find it easier to find mostly unbiased news online. I don't watch the news on TV, I don't read the newspaper -- everything is so full of opinion on the actual news that I just don't want to deal with it. Plus I'm awful at folding newspapers into readable shapes.
The newspaper is a dying art. As a photographer, I can't help but compare it to film photography. Sure its nice to use every once and while...yeah its cool. But it just isn't practical.
No I do not think so because we can get news from any place else if one particular company starts to charge fees for anyone who wants the news for the day like television for example. For one thing, I think it's very stupid that because our technology is advancing so fast that they are making these kind of resources obsolete. I mean not everyone has the same technology. Heck, my folks don't even have a working DVD player anymore so we're either stuck with our VCRs until we get a new one this Christmas or we play them on one of our video game systems. I say we either need to kinda slow down the whole advancement of technology or otherwise we're going to lose valuable resources to fall back on in case something like 2012 comes around (Not that I believe in it mind you, it's just an exaggerated example).
ReplyDeleteI think that we are moving to having no more newspapers. With the internet there isn't really a need for paper versions. I do think that newspaper websites should charge a fee to access the articles.
ReplyDeletePeople use the web to acess news already, and newspapers moving to a web-based form would be smart. I feel that people should be charged to acess the information, as this is a service and the journalists job. But I also think that companies should still have the hard copies, as individuals with no computer or those who do not know how to use a computer (like my grandma) should still be able to acess their favorite newspaper.
ReplyDelete