Is Journalism Dead?
That’s the title of the seminar I’m in right now at the Kauffman Foundation. It began with a speech from former Boston Globe writer David Warsh, who proclaimed that printed newspapers are not going away. He said there will always be an audience for the convenience of a physical paper. I’m not so sure.
George Mason economist and blogger Tyler Cowen asked the obvious question: If everyone will be carrying around a device that is a “reader”, a phone, email, internet, etc… who’s going to be buying the newspaper?
Now, we’ve moved on to a panel that has broadened the discussion.
Atlantic columnist Virginia Postrel cites what Esther Dyson said about news content back in the mid-90’s — that the price of content will eventually go to zero because of competition. Currently, The Wall Street Journal is the rare exception of a news organization that can charge for content online because there’s an audience willing to pay for what they see as content that’s exceptionally valuable.
The question we’re now debating is how other news companies can survive online and how journalists will make a living. Some here in the room are saying people will pay for content by writers they like and trust, so creating a “personal brand” will be important. There’s also talk about advertising models and micropayments, where people pay tiny amounts for each bit of content.
I’m curious what you think. Do you currently pay for any online content?
- Feb 27, 2009 7:36 AM — Scott Jagow
- 14 comments
About Scott Jagow and Scratch Pad
Latest Posts
- Chart of the Day
- Airplanes going nowhere
- Morning Reading
- Deep thoughts, by Chuck Lorre
- I want you back
- The bottled water scam
- Morning Reading
- Pin the tail on the lobbyist
- Tied up in knots
- Damned if you do
- Morning Reading
- From totally chic to totally geek
- Crackberry overtime
- Swimming with sharks
- Wine, women and the economy
sponsor
Scott's favorite spots
- 24/7 Wall Street
- BailoutSleuth
- The Big Picture
- Businessweek/Michael Mandel
- Cafehayek
- Calculated Risk
- Carpe Diem
- Clusterstock
- Crossing Wall Street
- DealBook
- Dealbreaker
- Econlog
- Economist
- Economist's View
- Felix Salmon
- Footnoted
- FT Alphaville
- Greg Mankiw
- Growthology
- Infectious Greed
- Knowledge Problem
- LittleSis
- Marginal Revolution
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
- The Money Blogs
- Naked Capitalism
- Paul Krugman
- Planet Money
- Real Clear Markets
- Seeking Alpha
- Silicon Alley Insider
- Sramana Mitra
- True/Slant
- Unemploymentality
- WSJ/Marketbeat




Comments (14)
February 27, 2009 9:32 AM PT
Maybe ironically, the only online (news) content I “pay for” is from NPR. I don’t buy the content directly, but I write them a reasonably big check (bigger than my yearly cable bill anyway) every year because I want them to continue doing what they do.
Regards, Charlie
February 27, 2009 10:26 AM PT
And let me just say, Charlie… thank you for getting it and for contributing.
February 27, 2009 10:19 AM PT
I agree completely with what Charlie posted. For one large reason: when do people get their news, and how available and easy to access is it?
As for NPR - you can get it in the car, when you wouldn’t be (or shouldn’t be for safety reasons - cell phone, eating, etc.) doing anything else that is productive. That makes the value extremely high.
Regarding print news, I highly doubt it will go away. Yes, phone / laptops / etc are portable, but the relative ease of reading or skimming a newspaper vs. looking up stories on your iPhone (or other device) is substantial. The opportunity cost of reading a paper over waiting for some story to load on my phone that I might not end up reading and having to navigate back again.. clear choice in my mind.
Also, do I trust printed news over almost anything online? Yes. Why? Even thought anything has a slant or perspective to it, someone has to pay to get it out there; whereas a blog or story online could come from anyone, anywhere, for any reason (my post for example ;).
The key will be staying solvent financially. Newsprint might need to become more market focused instead of trying to cover every subject out there; podcasts might still be free but included a short advertisement at the beginning; and NPR will still rely on engaged citizens to support it.
-A
February 27, 2009 10:32 AM PT
Some good thoughts. I love holding a newspaper in my hands too. But I wonder, as these devices get better and faster, whether it will be far more convenient to use them versus a physical newspaper. I suspect eventually, yes, and I don’t know that the nostalgic pleasure of a paper in your hands will be enough to overcome that.
February 27, 2009 12:54 PM PT
I think the only way it will be able to fully replace a newspaper will be if it can match the speed at which you can gather information out of physical print.
Part of this is the way your eye and brain access information presented visually. Think about how fast you can skim information in a paper. You can take in multiple article titles at the same time, and jump to what you want. Then, you can skim that article without having to re-size your screen, or constantly scroll and adjust. Also, the next time you return to your newspaper, you remember exactly where things are, which articles you noted as wanting to read but didn’t have time to get to, and nothing has shifted position since there are new stories being posted.
Yes, phones / laptops are great for very fast, very short and succinct updates on information. However, the depth of information coupled with the speed with which you can access, in my humble opinion of course, will not be surpassed by any portable device unless the technology vastly changes the way in which it presents information.
I guess it comes down to the relative cost of a paper vs. the time you save. Newspaper companies will have to understand the changing needs of the people who would want a physical newspaper and adjust accordingly.
Hopefully they can do it better and faster than car companies based in the US, heh.
-A
February 27, 2009 12:06 PM PT
I don’t like to pay for news information. I think everyone as tax payers and citizens of the world is entitled to free news information. It is our right to know what is happening around us. I agree that institutions like the wall street journal charge for providing information from which people can make money. I think that charging for ads should be enough, try doing that for online ads from corporations and a smaller fee for general population. I don’t agree with branding because it might make things more partial…so many things we grew up with are changing….
February 27, 2009 12:56 PM PT
So you grew up with free newspaper? Interesting..
February 27, 2009 1:57 PM PT
Can’t do the crossword on my phone. And you can read print media by flashlight when the power is out. :-)
I also agree with A. Rutkowski about the trustworthiness of the print media. Obviously every publication has its own slant, but at least in theory there are human beings who putting their real names on what they write and are being paid to do so. I also regard the Internet publications by known entities - such as Marketplace - as trustworthy, but information from random sources is dubious.
(Kinda reminds me of the famous New Yorker cartoon where two dogs are sitting in front of a computer. Caption: “On the Internet nobody knows you’re a dog.”)
February 28, 2009 5:48 AM PT
Do I pay for on-line content? Yes I do. I pay for on-line content from trade publications in the fields I work in.
The argument that information “should be free” is, to me, laughable. It takes labor to extract information from where it is hidden, or from the noise of the world, just as it takes labor to extract metals from the earth, food from the soil, or justice from the courts. I believe that people who labor do have a right to develop systems that let them earn a living wage for the service they provide.
February 28, 2009 11:13 AM PT
I’m a librarian at a university and part of my duties are teaching information literacy classes to students. Ironically I use that New Yorker Internet cartoon. I emphasize the point that more reliable sources to use for doing research and some leisure reading are from traditional news sources. Libraries are under utilized places that pay large sums of money for access to print and online (databases) sources.
February 28, 2009 1:56 PM PT
I am a casual reader of a few financial news pages. I used to enjoy Nouriel Roubini’s RGE Monitor site until they decided to start charging - $2500 per year for an everday user like me. He is a brilliant guy, but I will never get that kind of value. However, I could see paying “microamounts” for reading individual articles on his or some other quality site. I would consider signing up as a member for an arrangement that charged me a small incremental amount each time I actually used the content.
March 1, 2009 8:27 PM PT
Do I pay for content? No, and I probably won’t until they figure out a pricing model that more closely approximates the old newspaper and/or cable models. The thing about newspapers was that you paid a modest fee for the entire paper, and subscribers that read every day pay way less. I’m gonna have to pay $.99 to read Ann Landers? To heck with that. Radio and TV has always been free, or if you do pay, such as with cable, satrad, or NPR you get a big bang for the buck.
If I were to have to subscribe to the equivalent of every single piece content that used to be in the newspaper, or on the TV or radio individually that’s some serious coin. My checks to NPR are somewhat more modest than your previous poster…
March 2, 2009 12:22 PM PT
I get most of my news via NPR (which I pay for). I get the local daily paper delivered - mainly for local news. I hope they can keep up the daily delivery - my dog brings it in every morning, and he’d be really upset if it wasn’t there!
March 4, 2009 2:14 PM PT
Yes, journalism is dead. In my parents’ era, journalists were like soldiers, going up against Nixon and Johnson. They were trying to fulfill their civic duty as watchdogs and protectors of democracy and freedom. Todays reporters (not journalists) are suck-a$$e$ who have entirely sold out their principles to megalithic corporations and the governments they own. Reporters are cynical and blindly faithful to their masters. I even heard on the Marketplace podcast a reporter state that Obama was wrong to be so honest with the people about our current economic crisis. They see their job, not as seekers of truth, but as information controllers. They are censors, in other words, who paternalistically decide what we see and hear. So to answer your other question, no, I do not pay for “news.” I have in the past, but was disappointed. I would pay for real journalism, written by independent journalists, but how do I find that? Google?