1) Summarise each section in one sentence:
- Section 1 (To all of the bystanders reading this…)
Simon addresses his extreme certainty that news journalism should be appreciated, through the hard efforts that are put into it and this is must be highlighted through consumers paying for the high quality provided by the news institutions. In Simon's eyes: A pay wall is non-negotiable and all news institutes should join forces and abide by this.
- Section 2 (Truth is, a halting movement toward...)
This section expresses the falling moment in which industry leaders, misused the internet as mere advertising scheme, instead of creating pay wall from the start, and how this is a dominant factor infringing upon how they can set up a pay wall now. Specifically, Simon outlines the fact that audiences may be unwilling to suddenly pay for something that was once free. Additionally, he establishes that in fact web sites have increased the monthly readership in both the 'Times' and 'The Post', in America, than ever before. He goes into sufficient detail into American economical changes through the outbreak in TV and how it became successful with a range of channels that audiences pay for. He then compares it to the newspaper industry and provides implications as to how to newspaper industry can too flourish and create high revenues without just advertising.
- Section 3 (Beyond Mr. Sulzberger and Ms. Weymouth…)
Simon insights an audience towards the fact that the damage was caused before it was even recognised - newspaper's overall agenda to fill pages of articles and advertisement isn't coherent for a social climate that is constantly prone to change. A noteworthy point was his reference towards 'The Baltimore Sun's' who set a pay wall for both their print and digital newspaper, and this has proven to be worthwhile, in terms of revenues.
- Section 4 (For the industry, it is later than it should be…)
Simon evaluates the altering outcomes in which the 'Times' and 'The Post' will face if they take the plunge and the build the wall, which is what Simon desperately thinks will have long term benefits. The second scenario makes valid points in regards to how revenues can increase solely through the subscriptions added to news websites and how $10 monthly across an estimation of 300,000 people, will have a yearly outcome will reflect the efforts made by the institute.
3) Read this response to the article by Dave Levy, criticising and disagreeing with David Simon's viewpoint.
What references to new and digital media can you find in Levy's response?
- He highlights that blogs and Twitter are the gateways of online news
- Paid subscription/Online Subscriptions may lead to no print newspapers being consumed
In my opinion, I think that Simon makes exceptionally valid points in relation to the importance of professional journalists being credited for the work that they produce. I think that as the internet is becoming a new society in itself, with a plethora of accessibilities for audiences to access. Thus it is only right that we pay for the standard of information that we consume from newspapers. In regards to the film industry, 'Netflix' - an international film streaming site, primarily available for those who take up a yearly subscription which subsequently allows audiences to consume as many films as they wish. Likewise, 'Newspapers' should too, embody this same strategy, as audiences have proven to be able to adapt to 'buying/subscribing' on the net - from buying dvds, to subscribing to an online streamer. Therefore, they audiences should have no issue with doing purchasing their news. In addition, creating a pay wall across the digital newspapers, this will be successful for the young and upcoming generation who are most familiar with the digital platform, than print. Specifically, it is ideal that newspapers put online content behind a pay wall so journalist's work are appreciated and the print platform's legacy lives on - paying for content that is high in quality, as oppose to free inaccurate links on social mediums, e.g. Twitter. To finalise, I would be willing to pay for news as I think it is essential that journalists, researchers and editors are all recognised and valued for their great impact into informing nations and I think that if they aren't, this could detrimentally effect the quality of news that we start to receive.
No comments:
Post a Comment