Comments on: Governments should throw newspapers a life line http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/02/18/governments-should-throw-newspapers-a-life-line/ now with extra source Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:36:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Mark http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/02/18/governments-should-throw-newspapers-a-life-line/#comment-8710 Mark Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-8710 Having now read Kamiya's lengthy opinion piece, I've realized that he's fallen victim to one of the most pernicious tropes of the "end of the newspapers" argument: that we'll all be so hypnotized by our own ability to "pick what we want from the internet" rather than "take what we're given from newspapers" that we will effectively infantilize ourselves.<br /><br />In truth, this simply can't happen. I can choose my news - surely - but if I choose unwisely, I'm going to end up in a heap of trouble, and that quickly. I can choose to ignore my next-door neighbor's attempts to turn his home into an "arsenal of democracy", but at some point - perhaps when shots are fired - I'm going to have to get really knowledgeable, really quick. That means there is a demand for news, and there will always be a demand for the news.<br /><br />What we're seeing is a search for a new form of marketmaking between the reporters of news and the consumers of news. It isn't catastrophe, even if the news-makers see it as such. It is revolutionary, even if the news-makers prefer to ignore the revolution playing out right before them. Having now read Kamiya’s lengthy opinion piece, I’ve realized that he’s fallen victim to one of the most pernicious tropes of the “end of the newspapers” argument: that we’ll all be so hypnotized by our own ability to “pick what we want from the internet” rather than “take what we’re given from newspapers” that we will effectively infantilize ourselves.

In truth, this simply can’t happen. I can choose my news - surely - but if I choose unwisely, I’m going to end up in a heap of trouble, and that quickly. I can choose to ignore my next-door neighbor’s attempts to turn his home into an “arsenal of democracy”, but at some point - perhaps when shots are fired - I’m going to have to get really knowledgeable, really quick. That means there is a demand for news, and there will always be a demand for the news.

What we’re seeing is a search for a new form of marketmaking between the reporters of news and the consumers of news. It isn’t catastrophe, even if the news-makers see it as such. It is revolutionary, even if the news-makers prefer to ignore the revolution playing out right before them.

]]> By: chris http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/02/18/governments-should-throw-newspapers-a-life-line/#comment-8711 chris Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-8711 Newspapers come and newspapers go, that's how the system works. Middle class welfare for journalists, I think not. The quid pro quo would have to be journalist registrations like every other profession; come to think of it not a bad idea after all. However do we really want a modern day version of the Volkisher Beobachter spewing forth government popaganda? When the government payeth, the government dictateth. Newspapers come and newspapers go, that’s how the system works. Middle class welfare for journalists, I think not. The quid pro quo would have to be journalist registrations like every other profession; come to think of it not a bad idea after all. However do we really want a modern day version of the Volkisher Beobachter spewing forth government popaganda? When the government payeth, the government dictateth.

]]> By: John D http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/02/18/governments-should-throw-newspapers-a-life-line/#comment-8712 John D Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-8712 Here is the difference - there are state supported TV stations, specifically run to provide a balance and perceived unbiased position on news, drama, arts etc. The government could remove funding, and the medium itself - television - would still continue as a cost effective method of communication of ideas and other content. Some of the private TV stations still seem to be making a profit, albeit reduced - but that is more to do with inflated business models and unreasonable cost structures.<br /><br />The issue with newspapers is their ability to adapt, and to understand what people want from their product. It is a hybrid of print and digital, with the ability to sit down for a couple of hours on Saturday morning with the Ramsey's, Priors, and God help us, Devines - whilst still having the ability to access online up to the minute content written by real journos. Here's the thing - people will pay for this service. We subscribe to Crikey. I subscribe to The Monthly. I buy The Big Issue. Because I value the content, I am prepared to pay for it. I personally think the $1.30 per day for the SMH undervalues the publication. I would happily pay $3 if I could get journalism of the quality of Annabelle Crabbe and Rodd Gittins on a daily basis.<br /><br />So, rather than cost cutting and reducing perceived value, why not investigate increasing the value of the product, lifting prices to a sustainable level, and re analysing the mix of subscription price in conjunction with advertising dollars to determine the optimum spend? <br /><br />Just a thought.<br /> Here is the difference - there are state supported TV stations, specifically run to provide a balance and perceived unbiased position on news, drama, arts etc. The government could remove funding, and the medium itself - television - would still continue as a cost effective method of communication of ideas and other content. Some of the private TV stations still seem to be making a profit, albeit reduced - but that is more to do with inflated business models and unreasonable cost structures.

The issue with newspapers is their ability to adapt, and to understand what people want from their product. It is a hybrid of print and digital, with the ability to sit down for a couple of hours on Saturday morning with the Ramsey’s, Priors, and God help us, Devines - whilst still having the ability to access online up to the minute content written by real journos. Here’s the thing - people will pay for this service. We subscribe to Crikey. I subscribe to The Monthly. I buy The Big Issue. Because I value the content, I am prepared to pay for it. I personally think the $1.30 per day for the SMH undervalues the publication. I would happily pay $3 if I could get journalism of the quality of Annabelle Crabbe and Rodd Gittins on a daily basis.

So, rather than cost cutting and reducing perceived value, why not investigate increasing the value of the product, lifting prices to a sustainable level, and re analysing the mix of subscription price in conjunction with advertising dollars to determine the optimum spend?

Just a thought.

]]> By: chris http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/02/18/governments-should-throw-newspapers-a-life-line/#comment-8713 chris Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-8713 Newspapers come and newspapers go, that's how the system works. Middle class welfare for journalists, I think not. The quid pro quo would have to be journalist registrations like every other profession; come to think of it not a bad idea after all. However do we really want a modern day version of the Volkisher Beobachter spewing forth government propaganda? When the government payeth, the government dictateth. Newspapers come and newspapers go, that’s how the system works. Middle class welfare for journalists, I think not. The quid pro quo would have to be journalist registrations like every other profession; come to think of it not a bad idea after all. However do we really want a modern day version of the Volkisher Beobachter spewing forth government propaganda? When the government payeth, the government dictateth.

]]>