Build the Wall Analysis

http://www.cjr.org/feature/build_the_wall_1.php?page=all

This link is an article by David Simon, Creator of the TV hit 'The Wire' and a former journalist, he has written this article to defense the newspaper industry against new and digital media. 

Section One:

David Simon compares the internet and newspaper, he explains that the content on the internet wants to be free but newspapers need to find a way to make people pay. He strongly believes that people will pay for news and that there are many people who agree with his opinion/point of view and are willing to keep newspapers alive as newspaper journalism is far better in terms of for news to them. He aims his article at high end journalists and not the average everyday reader. content matters the most, is his point, he explains how most newspapers are ruining their business and their revenue by going online and making it free for people. He tells the larger newspaper executives that their newspapers can be saved, introducing paywalls online and doing so together will  make a change and a change for a more positive outcome for newspapers as they will get income from subscribers.

Section Two:

This net section focuses on newspaper revenue and how paywall can help create a new way to earn money but clarifies that the two main newspaper companies using this method are The Times and The Post, he identifies the strength they could win with would be to act together and implement the paywall at the same time or else it won't pan out the ideal way and will end up in failure. He emphasizes the power, content, quality and range with reader that The Times has, industry leaders have reacted to this problem very slowly, that they are vulnerable. Furthermore in order to protect and keep The Times content that is of high quality from experience journalists would be through a paywall and that most people will pay for the newspaper on or offline going against how online information is seen as superior.

Section Three:

Section three is about how newspapers have potential to make readers accept paywalls and it won't seem as bizzare as we assume they would feel about them. The example was like that 10% of 210.000 sun readers who pay a subscription rate less than half the price of home delivery, would represent about $2.5 million. Even though 10% of the many thousands pay for it, this amounts to a high revenue for the newspapers.

Section Four:

Section 4 talks about the outcomes of The Times and The Post implementing a paywall to create revenue for newspaper, how it will help these newspapers survive through this issue with new and digital media and online journalism. Furthermore he says the paywall is a cheap but short term and long term very profitable. He touches on the assumption that the would be a potential collapse of regional papers, providing oppertunities for subscriptions online to overtake.

In conclusion, i think that David Simon's point is realistic and can work out for the newspaper industry. Through his in depth understanding of the two; internet and newspaper, he explains how people will be willing to pay for their news with a subscription. He favors newspapers and believes there is still worth, potential and life still out there for them and that they shouldn't give up or watch their number of readers count go down. The younger audience being so influence by technology as they grow up would be a harder target and therefore David encourages newspaper to pay attention to this target group and alter or improve newspaper slightly o cater for that group.

Comments:

1st Comment:
  
I fully agree with David Simon.

The big dogs of journalism must act soon and decisively if they want to save the virtues and quality that define the very notion of their profession.

I'd really rather pay for a good, interesting, unbiased, informative, product of journalism than read amateur bloggers who jot down a few sentences and then cover half of the screen with screaming advertisements.

#42 Posted by Nerijus on Thu 23 Jul 2009 at 08:10 AM

This post is from a person who strongly agrees with he article, he sees news as a way to see the world, if it was written by inexperienced people that put their own opinion before telling the plain truth then news will be something no one will trust at all. He faintly touches on the fact that quality of professionals is better than getting news from amateur bloggers. Furthermore these blogger may take up most of their blog with adverts showing they care more about money from adverts than quality to reporting news with their view count. although blogging would get more views and opinions getting news from professional institutes make readers feel more trustworthy and believable as well as well informed.

2nd Comment:

Fabulous analysis. Have one suggestion.

The analysis is fabulous because David Simon reports on the behind the scenes transformation in business management drivers in media and other markets (e.g. detroit). Like the writer, I've experienced the days when product development and sales were the drivers for managing business. Today financial performance is the driver. When the latter dominates the former, the result is mediocrity and tricky business models to derive revenues. It is time to invest in producing a product everyone is proud to make, sell, and buy.

Also, Simon's credibility is high due to his participation in the premium cable market. Subscription levels and profits are at all time highs in 4th qtr 2008, even during the peak of an economic crisis. This is a clear message from consumers which all media should listen carefully to. Do not underestimate what consumers will pay for quality.

My suggestion. A 5 page article allows the author to truly analyze the problem, doesn't it? This is a competitive advantage. Free news TV and talk radio don't have the time to cover news so comprehensively. Bloggers don't have the resources for comprehensive research and analysis. Consider how comprehensive coverage - among other features enabling real time interactivity from anywhere and quality control - would transform audience interactivity from chaotic to rewarding conversations. Such satisfying conversations and the potential collateral benefits (chance to connect with like-minded people) would sustain a premium subscription base.

Katherine (at) comradity.com

#29 Posted by Katherine Warman Kern on Tue 21 Jul 2009 at 08:30 AM

This post by another person also agrees with the article highlighting the comprehensive and details coverage the news include in their articles. She knows the writters background and also comments a lengthy post which slightly encourages people to agree with her. Her opinion is clear and detailed in order to make readers see her reaction. She identifies how free news tv and radio don't have the time to cover news in such detail and bloggers don't have the resources to do what the current news journalists can do. subscription for good quality and comprehensive news is something people would subscribe to and be willing to pay because it would be a better source than to follow amateur bloggers, listen to a 30 second update on the radio or watch a brief 1 minute news on BBC.

3rd Comment:

It's funny watching the comments become more hostile as I read down the page, as non-regular CJR readers dive in from around the internet. One of the downsides of twitter etc. is that any conversation can be quickly hijacked by a stream of people saying "I won't pay for anything," "information wants to be free" and the like. (And then the inevitable fightback with cries of "The Internet Sucks".) The comment system encourages this kind of argument, but more nuance is needed, of course.

Simon senses something which I think many newspaper people do, and evangelists for Free often don't: a free web-based newspaper is, by definition, a different beast to a print-based newspaper in terms of content. The web is ill-suited to 10,000 word articles, and its instant-sharing nature - which seems to get ever more accelerated - is ill-suited to that sort of conversation. That doesn't mean that good, interesting stuff doesn't happen in free-world, and maybe Simon doesn't give enough credit there. But the advocates of free - and I mean those who argue it *should* be the model, not those who merely argue it *will* be the model - don't seem to acknowledge the sheer investment in time and personnel this kind of in-depth journalism takes. Even if you're a huge believer in crowdsourcing you have to accept there are some things that need the professional touch. Even in the time of fast food we still cook sometimes, and people realise how satisfying it is. Similarly, even in a time of free quick-share information, some people, some of the time - probably better-off people - will always want to sit and read the paper, and will pay for the highest quality stuff. Saying "information wants to be free" ignores the fact that the best journalism offers more than information, but an experience - a story well told, etc - and that stuff can, I'm 100% certain, be charged for.

Where I'm sceptical is in regional. I've no doubt the NYT and WaPo must go this route, and I've no doubt they will. I suspect sooner or later one non-profit website will emerge in the US offering free view-from-nowhere newsto those who want to avoid the more partisan HuffPo media. But my gut tells me people won't pay for a local newspaper in addition to a national - and make no mistake, if the NYT and WaPo go this route, they will need to nationalise and internationalise themselves fast. If your growing revenue stream is from paying subscribers, you need, at minimum, a version of your site which sidelines the local content for them to use. If you're subscribing to (say) the Economist and NYT online for $20 a month, are you going to pay another $10 for local news?

#28 Posted by Rav Casley Gera on Tue 21 Jul 2009 at 08:28 AM

This post also agrees with the article using the example of fast food. People buy fast food and when they make something for dinner at home, they may be surprised at how nice it is. This example is used with news, reading quick small articles using apps, sites and blogs then reading a newspaper and seeing how different the information being provided is communicated to the reader. reading news from apps, sites and blogs opposed to the newspaper, the readers will be able to see the difference and therefore understand the difference in quality and comprehensive detailed news. This post also includes that some people pay for 'The Economist' each month a certain amount, its unlikely that they will pay more for a local or international newspaper.

The mentality of people today is that the internet is free and there would react to paying for good quality and professionally written news bizarre however both the image of reading a newspaper with a coffee in the morning as well as the respect and the understanding of the quality of news in the newspaper would get people to subscribe and through the encouraging comments making their opinion very clear.

How has news changed in the last 20 years?

How has news changed in the last 20 years, considering institutions and audiences, who has benefited the most?

In 20 years news has changed vastly, in terms of the way the audience can access news it has developed a great deal. News was only available in the print form of a newspapers for a very long time, then developed with technology onto TV news. TV News was launched in the 80's and then came the introduction of 24 hour news from CNN. This was a huge step from newspapers and daily news at certain times to having news available 24/7 non-stop and on teletext. 

Internet was available in the 90's and has changed and developed into a more convenience use and a easy to access form of news. Newspapers have also moved to online sites and many people get news from search engine Google News, BBC website and even social networking such as Twitter. 

Due to internet news and the wide range of knowledge and coverage it brought to the audience affected and was the cause of the fall in newspaper circulation and also caused loss of advertising revenue. Newspaper such as Metro and Evening Standard have their newspaper for free after noticing a decline in purchases and to prevent a further loss of advertising revenue gave their newspapers for free. Giving it for free at stations in London increased th amount of people reading the paper and therefore meant the cost of advertising in the newspaper to rise once again. Newspaper sites such as the Daily Mail have pay walls for online sites which audiences pay for on a weekly basis even through the view that people hold of how news should be free. 

The transformation from teletext to the button shows how the only source of 24 hour news audiences had was through digital news board to the red button on the majority of TVs ensuring easier to use and wider variety at peoples reach.

New Digital Media

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/20/uk-cyber-security-chief-the-password-abc123-is-better-than-nothing

Through the rise of technology this article is explaining that having password is better than nothing. the internet is unsafe and they want to make people aware of dangers as its creating many problems like cyber theft and leaking. An example is Snapchat leaking thousands of user names and phone numbers in america by a hacker at the start of January 2014 on a website. Many people have been told the dangers but not in depth and this can lead ignorant and people who are internet-uneducated into potential dangers. Shows like Catfish identify a problem but not all of them. the internet holds many dangers and can involve giving private information, theft of money, hacking and many more. The purpose of this article is to get attention of these hazards and to start making more people aware of these problems as they are increasingly occurring.

New Digital Media

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/20/spotify-sensors-heart-rate-mood-playlists-motion-tracking

Summary:

Spotify is catering to customers emotions and activities. This new idea or production of music playing depending on how the listener feels or is doing makes it easier for people to carry on their daily activities without searching or finding the songs they feel match their mood or job. for example at gym spotify will play music that pumps and energies the listener with dance music or upbeat songs they have on their account.  The more information it collects the better the suitability is for users through algorithms. Currently humans are doing this but they are soon going to change to computers to carry out the job. This can be viewed at useless and a waste of money or time however people with a busy lifestyle who really focus on music will feel at ease and less stressed as spotify will be able to identify what songs would go with the emotions or activities being done which caters for a demand and perhaps the trend will catch on and the reviews and reactions may encourage or discourage the users.

STATS: Nearly half of mobile listening, if not more, is people listening to their own curated playlists.

The Future of Newspapers

http://www.economist.com/node/7830218

Do you agree with its view that it is ‘a cause for concern, but not for panic’?

This article from the economist is challenging how the danger that newspaper are in are something we shouldn't worry about. It also explains that non-profit organisations will fund for the ongoing on newspapers and an example used is how the Guardian are surviving through this method also.This article also argues that good stories will benefit society which is why people will read them and therefore ensures it is a concern but not a panic for newspapers.

I disagree with this because its not a concern but more of a panic at this stage. I agree that newspapers are needed, that we should keep it going as it is more of a professional way to receive news. However newspapers partially targeting stories of politicians, taking them to public court, challenging them and informing the public of the trust through honesty and partially opinion which is why it's so important.

Newspapers are in danger and they should focus on new ways to survive opposed to ignoring it. The article says that non-profit organisations will back it and fund the papers but it doesn't mean readers will still read it. There is no guarantee that in the future the current digital generation will even want to pick up a newspaper in their middle age or older age. People like convenience, why would they get a newspaper for news when they can use digital media like phones which easier to read off and easier to choose what articles to read and which to avoid. This means it will put newspapers in danger of extinction, people using their phones or tablets would read articles and things on the internet opposed to holding a big newspaper which may feel annoying, people won't see what is being read therefore people won't be able to judge.

NewAssignment.Net is a plan to combine journalists and bloggers together - professional and amateurs - will be difficult to fund but would work out for this digital age in terms of the fact it will be read and the combination will improve news material that is being posted for the public.

Newspapers focus on local news and have sections on global news, apps and mobile sites for news have a whole range of topics to categorize types of news making it easier and better for them to use.

Impact of New Digital Media

	For News, Impact On:
Audience	Institution	Theories & debates
v  Easy access means people can read news easily at anytime  v  Information they get may be inaccurate v  Global News: Wider access and wider knowledge v  UGC: ‘Citizen Journalist’ allowing audiences to report news and record or capture at incidents where there may not be news reporters present	v  Fall in newspaper circulation  v  Fall in TV News viewing v Loss of Jobs v  Brand can be tarnished for providing inaccurate info v   Newspapers have lost advertising revenue due to New digital media like Google	v    Paretos law: 80/20  v  Globalisation v  Pluralism v  "Dumbing down of Society" v  Castell: "Ushers in the information ages" v  "The internet is the most important medium"

End of Unit Question

There are always concerns about new technology. In your view, what are the possible benefits and problems attached to the Internet? 

You must include the following:

• An introduction

• Both sides of the argument

• At least three theorists or theories (e.g. Pareto's Law)

• Your opinion

There are many benefit and drawbacks with the internet, two sides of this extraordinary ability to connect through a global network of computers that use the standard Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP) to serve several billion users worldwide. The Internet uses an extensive range of information resources and services, such as the inter-linked hypertext documents of the World Wide Web, the ability to support email, and peer-to-peer networks. 


Adv: Info on every subject on internet (Castell - an applicatiopn that will usher in the information age - 1996) - regularly updated, news regularly updated, studying resources for children to post graduate and even higher levels of education, help for homework from wiki answers etc, search engines which are very effective, ways of communicating - far distances, forums- discussion (one to many, one to one, many to many), enables people to build relationships either love or friendship over the internet, sharing abilities, internationally accessible, entrepreneurship/innovation, freedom, helps promote democracy - Arab spring, user generated content active users and producers, (beyonce)

Dis: some information may not be reliable or correct on the internet - anyone can post anything not necessarily true(Paul Walkers daughter fake accounts), addicted to internet - effect social skills, predators such as paedophiles lurking on the internet, pornography accessible by children,  makes homework and essays easy for students as there are sites with previously handed in essays available, censorship, viruses, hackers


Pareto's Law: 80/20 80% of media is produced by 20% of producers - 80% of tweets on twitter from 20% of twitter users

Bobo Doll/ CopyCat: if they see it online - london riots; cause chaos - they will want to do it 

Andrew Keen: says that web pages and blogs to the activity of a million monkeys typing nonsense in his book 'The cult of the amateur - How today's Internet is killing out culture'- Dumbing down

Sherry Turkle: Alone together - taken over, more with internet than in person - snapchat friends while sitting next to them, selfies in funerals, 
(guardian article http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/may/05/rational-heroes-sherry-turkle-mit)

Briggs and Burke: The Most important medium of the 20th Century - 2005 - important because you can access global news - update instantly/regularly. news online before printed 

3 New and Digital Media News

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/digital-media/10546191/Change-is-good-just-look-at-the-entertainment-industry.html

New figures from the Entertainment Retailers Association (ERA) are proof that the internet has been anything but the curse many in the music and film industries feared it would be.

Spending on music, film and video games in the UK rose last year for the first time since 2009, thanks to big increases in digital sales and streaming services such as Netflix and Spotify.

It has taken too long for the music and film industries to embrace the internet. For many years it was seen as the enemy; record labels pursued file-sharers and resisted putting their songs online. Meanwhile, revenues declined year after year.

Consumers were always going to value the internet’s convenience, and many who were unable to buy what they wanted turned to piracy. Now, with the exception of a few outspoken musicians, the music and film industries have entered the 21st century. People can access movies and songs at the touch of the button, and are willing to pay for it.

Looking at the ERA’s figures, which show a 34pc rise in music streaming revenues and a 40pc rise in digital film sales, it is clear that the industry’s obstinance was foolish.

Summary: This article backs up the point of how technology and easier ways to access music as well as the internet generally. The future years ahead may face an increase in digital purchases opposed to physical copies. This is due to the way we can put music on laptops, tablets, phones, etc and also link these devices to portable speakers or even the car so therefore physical CDs aren't needed and therefore will face a decrease in purchases from stores. An example of this is how Beyonce released her music via iTunes.

Stats: This show a 34pc rise in music streaming revenues and a 40pc rise in digital film sales

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/digital-media/10542265/Alarm-clock-gadget-most-in-danger-of-dying-out.html

The traditional alarm clock is the gadget most in danger of being made redundant by smartphones, a study claims.

Stand-alone satellite navigation systems are also at risk of becoming obsolete next year due to smartphones, according to the list of the "top 10 endangered technologies" compiled by pixmania.com.

Meanwhile the increasing popularity of retina-display tablet computers puts small-screen televisions at risk, and the DVD player is becoming less popular as consumer turn to online streaming servives such as Netflix and LoveFilm.

Docks to connect iPods to speakers are at risk as consumers instead use Bluetooth or wireless streaming services.

Laurent Cohen from Pixmania.com said: "As technology evolves and people become more comfortable with the latest tech, older gadgets are naturally pushed into retirement."

Kieran Alger, editor-in-chief at technology magazine T3 added: "It's a cliche to say technology moves fast but we're seeing that pace of change quicken.

"Technologies like Blu-ray that aren't really that old are already looking a bit beleaguered with new on-demand services coming thick and fast to take their place.

"However, at the centre of everything is the smartphone - it's the most important device we all own.

"It is single-handedly threatening a wide range of other product categories as it adds more weapons to its arsenal and grows ever more powerful."

Top 10 endangered technologies:

Alarm ClocksStand-alone sat navsiPod docksFlip camerasBlu-Ray playersDVD playersThe watchBlackberryTV Remote controlSmall Portable TVs

Summary: This article explains how the convenience of having one product with multiple abilities better than a number of products with separate abilities. A phone holds many abilities/features for example an alarm, timer, sat nav, apps to control music, calculator, etc and this means more features are being compressed to make it more accessible. This puts the stand alone devices in danger of not being bought as popularity is decreasing for them. These products are not needed because the products that feature them also feature other abilities, people tend to check their mobile phone for the time opposed to their  wrist for a watch explaining how much easier it is because they can also check for any messages or notifications also.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10548196/Facebook-mined-private-messages-to-advertisers-lawsuit-claims.html

Facebook is being sued over claims it mines users’ private messages to advertisers without their consent.

According to a complaint filed in California, the social network “misleads users into believing they have a secure, private mechanism for communication, when in fact Facebook... mines user data and profits from those data by sharing them with third parties”.

The lawsuit, brought by Facebook users Matthew Campbell and Michael Hurley, who are seeking class action status, stems from claims in 2012 that the website scans private messages for information that is used to work out how many “likes” a page has. At the time Facebook said “no private information has been exposed”.

On the latest lawsuit, a Facebook spokesman said: "We believe the allegations are without merit and we will defend ourselves vigorously."

It comes less than a month a US court ruled that investors could pursue claims against the social network over its $16bn IPO in 2012.

A group of shareholders left out of pocket by the initial public offering in May last year, have spent the past year arguing that Facebook and its bankers left material information out of the “S-1” document it filed ahead of its market debut.

In particular, they claim that Facebook should have published more information about the impact growing mobile usage was likely to have on revenues at the social network, including internal forecasts which the company passed on to the banks underwriting its IPO.

Facebook and the banks involved in the legal row claim that the information was immaterial, and that it was under no obligation to make such disclosures.

However, Robert Sweet, US District Judge in Manhattan, sided with the investors, clearing the way for them to lodge a slew of claims against Facebook and dozens of banks, including Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs.