Globe to start charging to read Boston.com?

[Gwedd]

The flip side of this issue is that all of these various media will eventually be primarily web-based. Why? because that's what the 30 somethings and younger folks have grown up with. The primary subscribers to newspapers are businesses, libraries, and folks in the upper 40's and older. As they age and pass away, they are being replaced by people who get virtually all their news and info from the web, with TV as the distant second place.

The newspapers had better be able to adjust to this, and, frankly, I'm amazed that it's only been the past year or two that they have realized that technology has made them expendable.

Adapt or die. It's not only that way in nature, but more so in business.

respects,

 

[Ian]

what about ESPN for sports? MSNBC, YAHOO, CNN, etc that publish new news content almost on an hourly basis. You can't stop them. ESPN, MSNBC, FOX, CNN, and all those other websites' main moneymaker is their TV channels and they use their internet websites to drive viewers to their channel. Print newspapers as it stands is no longer a profitable industry. It's just evolution.

The difference between local and national media is that the local media sources are the ones who tend to break the majority of stories, while the national media tends to be the ones who pick them up and then expand on them. Without local media, a lot of other things would also probably be missed (players being released, waivers, contract details, players in for a visit, etc.) so not having them would definitely be a detriment.

 

[Captn]

This one belongs in the political forum, seems the newspapers failure is due to the leftist politics.
Has anyone inquired about buying an add to sell an item in the newspaper's classified section, or better yet, put an add in for help needed? The difference between the web and a help wanted ad is hundreds of dollars. A slam dunk for not going with paper.
Shopped for a car lately? I imagine that was a big revenue maker for the papers.
Having worked for a paper, I've seen the printing presses, the rolls of paper, the barrels of ink, the union workers manning those presses, the building that houses that mammoth machinery.........vs a laptop?
How about the circulation department? Think about the trucks, gas, equipment (bundles, sorters, inserters) racks, labor, that are no longer required.
In regards to the politics, you can go back to the beginning of the industry and make the same argument concerning right and left politics, or even opinion concerning sports and the conclusion is after hundreds of years the decline of the industry is not because of a left or right agenda, it's the evolution of the media.
What's next is any body's guess. But here's my list of items that will be obsolete in my children's lifetime.
Newspapers
Pennies
Post Office's
Gas stations
Sorry for getting off point, but disagreed with the above post.

Facts are facts, sorry that you don't agree with them. People do not like to read the daily rags no more because they publish rubbish.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

The difference between local and national media is that the local media sources are the ones who tend to break the majority of stories, while the national media tends to be the ones who pick them up and then expand on them. Without local media, a lot of other things would also probably be missed (players being released, waivers, contract details, players in for a visit, etc.) so not having them would definitely be a detriment.

Local, not necessarily big city, papers that really cover the local news and do it well are doing better than their big city counterparts. Cape Cod Times is very readable and not full of editorial opinion in supposed news. However, the migration of classified ad revenue to the internet and NOT to newspaper sites on the internet is deadly. In the early 90s I used to pay over $100 for one ad one weekend in the NYT or Globe to rent my cottage. Since the web emergence in the later 90s, I pay $200 and get a well trafficked internet vacation rental site for a year. And I get more rentals.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Just a few years ago the NYT took their 'name' colmnists away from their site and charged a premium to read them. After a couple years when nobody was reading them, the NYT abandoned the practice. The content really needs to have value. Reiss aside, I can't think of anything from Morrisey Blvd that satisfies that criteria. And Reiss, as much as I like him, can be duplicated by the Pats' utilizing other new media outlets.

What he said .............. :yeahthat:

 

[maverick4]

No one is debating that editorial, opinion, discussion-based content will likely continue to be free online, whether it be based on discussion boards, news aggregators with comments, or magazines solely devoted to commentary and opinion.

For news, however, you need a full time professional to cover and report the news. When news providers decide to put a wall around their content, people will definitely pay for this content. They will have to first go through a rough patch though, like the music industry did, in suing and protecting its IP and stopping the pasting and illegal use of its news text/content.

 

[PatriotsInGA]

Local, not necessarily big city, papers that really cover the local news and do it well are doing better than their big city counterparts. Cape Cod Times is very readable and not full of editorial opinion in supposed news. However, the migration of classified ad revenue to the internet and NOT to newspaper sites on the internet is deadly. In the early 90s I used to pay over $100 for one ad one weekend in the NYT or Globe to rent my cottage. Since the web emergence in the later 90s, I pay $200 and get a well trafficked internet vacation rental site for a year. And I get more rentals.

But local media isn't always good. When I formerly lived in Taunton, I got the Globe and the Taunton Gazette and to be honest it gave no information. It was basically a giant box score, all opinion. It's probably different now, but somethings never change.

 

[Gwedd]

No one is debating that editorial, opinion, discussion-based content will likely continue to be free online, whether it be based on discussion boards, news aggregators with comments, or magazines solely devoted to commentary and opinion.

For news, however, you need a full time professional to cover and report the news. When news providers decide to put a wall around their content, people will definitely pay for this content. They will have to first go through a rough patch though, like the music industry did, in suing and protecting its IP and stopping the pasting and illegal use of its news text/content.

I'll grant you that, but take a look at all the major articles sometime, and see how many are generated by a wire service, rather than the paper's own reporters. AP, Reuters, etc. The papers pay a good chunk of change for the rights to use those articles in their editions, and, interestingly enough, AP is now threatening to charge everyone for ANY use of ANY portion of it's work, which would be in violation of US Copyright laws. The "fair-yse" portion allows reviewers and other reporters, etc, to use small sections of copyrighted works without having to pay. Most blogs work like that, snipping a quote or two from the article, then linking to the original. However, AP wants to ban simple linking as well, unless it gets paid for such use.

AP, like Murdoch, will be shooting themselves in the foot if they go this route without some serious planning and fore thought.

respects,

 

[Pujo]

The newspapers have only themselves to blame for the decline in revenue. The big drop off in readers began when President Bush was elected in 2000. Regardless of whether or not you liked him, his policies, whatever, the newspapers, which are overwhelmingly left, decided to play politics and dropped any pretense of objective reporting. Reporters began to see themselves as opinion-shapers, rather than just reporting the facts, and constantly and demonstrably slanted news to fit their perception, and what they wanted their readers to read, rather than just give out the facts and let the readership make up it's own mind.

Well, a lot of people didn't like that, and dropped their subscriptions...

Drivel. Personally I thought the issue with content during that time was newspapers trying too hard to be objective and not call evil by its true name, but that's just me and it's neither here nor there. Newspapers aren't going under because of biased content, I've never heard anyone suggest that. You got it right in a later post, newspapers are dying because of the web.

It's news, but printed on paper. In 2009. It's time to let it die, and I say that as someone who enjoys reading the paper with my lunch.

 

[Ian]

But local media isn't always good. When I formerly lived in Taunton, I got the Globe and the Taunton Gazette and to be honest it gave no information. It was basically a giant box score, all opinion. It's probably different now, but somethings never change.

I was more or less referring to how we receive our information on the team here locally, and if we'd suffer if the newspapers died and we were left with just the national media to rely on. We'd miss out on a lot of the minor (albeit still interesting) transactions that happen with the team. It's the newspapers who usually report player visits, etc. not the national media. We even learn from other newspapers in other cities about a player being in for a visit. If all newspapers went away, we'd miss out on quite a bit.

 

[jmt57]

I was more or less referring to how we receive our information on the team here locally, and if we'd suffer if the newspapers died and we were left with just the national media to rely on. We'd miss out on a lot of the minor (albeit still interesting) transactions that happen with the team. It's the newspapers who usually report player visits, etc. not the national media. We even learn from other newspapers in other cities about a player being in for a visit. If all newspapers went away, we'd miss out on quite a bit.

To take that one step further, where would the national sites get their information? One scenario would be that local television and radio stations would increase their presence on the web. We've already seen more columns on weei.com and nesn.com, and the local television affiliates of fox, abc, nbc and cbs would be naturals to fill in the gap left by newspapers.

A second scenario would be national sites starting to utilize sites such as this one. Far less likely since most of the information posted here originated elsewhere, but not completely out of the realm of possibility. More likely it would be for opinion and analysis; look for example at how foxsports and cbssports uses Bleacher Report.

 

[Dragda]

They're stupid.

The Wall Street Journal pay per site is a different thing entirely. You can actually USE that information. Meaning it's not just entertainment. News isn't useful and you can get it free. Boston.com is full of themselves or just gripping.

 

[Pats726]

However, AP wants to ban simple linking as well, unless it gets paid for such use.

If under copyright law allows fair use..is AP challenging that? They can DEMAND payment for such..but won't they have to need a law change OR a court interpretation to enforce that? They can want that all day..but the courts or lawmakers will have to make a change.

 

[maverick4]

News isn't useful and you can get it free.

Not true. Strip away the useless opinions, editorials, commentary, etc... you still need news professionals out there covering news, events, and reporting them related to that topic or territory.

If all the news reporters stopped giving away news for free, WHERE would you get it? You'd have a ton of sites talking about the news, but anytime they linked to actual news, you'd have to pay to actually read the source.

 

[maverick4]

I'll grant you that, but take a look at all the major articles sometime, and see how many are generated by a wire service, rather than the paper's own reporters. AP, Reuters, etc. The papers pay a good chunk of change for the rights to use those articles in their editions, and, interestingly enough, AP is now threatening to charge everyone for ANY use of ANY portion of it's work, which would be in violation of US Copyright laws. The "fair-yse" portion allows reviewers and other reporters, etc, to use small sections of copyrighted works without having to pay. ,

I am familiar with fair use, as well as with AP. I'm not surprised AP is pushing for this, I would if I were them. 'Fair use' moving forward is going to follow the law, meaning just tiny snippets from sources, where if you want to actually read the source/news that every other site references and talks about, you will have to pay up to read it (just like with WSJ articles right now).

The future is going to have all news providers (not commentary but news) create walls around their content. When that happens, WHO are you going to go to for free news? You'll have thousands of sites talking about the news, but none actually providing any news, it's all commentary on the source that they can't generously quote/paste.

 

[scout]

Facts are facts, sorry that you don't agree with them. People do not like to read the daily rags no more because they publish rubbish.

Therefore, newspapers would be going belly-up if the internet did not exist.
Hardly.

 

[Deus Irae]

Therefore, newspapers would be going belly-up if the internet did not exist.
Hardly.

Newspapers have been in decline since the 80's.

Strib Circulation Down, Pioneer Press Holds Steady - wcco.com

 

[Pats726]

The future is going to have all news providers (not commentary but news) create walls around their content. When that happens, WHO are you going to go to for free news? You'll have thousands of sites talking about the news, but none actually providing any news, it's all commentary on the source that they can't generously quote/paste.

I wonder IF that is really going to happen...What AP story will I not get..if I do not subscribe to AP...and can NOT get from other sources?? What will be ALL that exclusive?? Frankly I think a notion like that is silly..that sources will not exist..I really think in this day and age..one needs to look at a larger picture.. Who would you call news providers?? In this time..ANYONE will be a reporter..a news provider..I think youtube..and other places on the net will have opportunities for that..and to think some elites will try and DEMAND pay is something that will not happen..I wonder what REAL information I will be missing?? I think there will be plenty of alternatives..

 

[BTTA]

I asked a prominent national reporter if she thought the press leaned to the left. She said perhaps a bit, but nothing like what the right wing accuses it of. And then she asked me something very interesting: "Why do you think it would be that a very large group of people who are more exposed to what is actually happening in the world than any other group of people, end up with a politic that leans to the left?"

The newspapers have only themselves to blame for the decline in revenue. The big drop off in readers began when President Bush was elected in 2000. Regardless of whether or not you liked him, his policies, whatever, the newspapers, which are overwhelmingly left, decided to play politics and dropped any pretense of objective reporting. Reporters began to see themselves as opinion-shapers, rather than just reporting the facts, and constantly and demonstrably slanted news to fit their perception, and what they wanted their readers to read, rather than just give out the facts and let the readership make up it's own mind.

Well, a lot of people didn't like that, and dropped their subscriptions. Now, newspapers make very little from subscriptions, the lion's share of their revenue comes from advertising. When subscriptions started to fall off, advertisers took notice and started to scale back advertising. The portion they scaled back went, instead, to mostly on-line sources, which could tailor their ads to select markets based upon web traffic.

In other words, advertisers are putting their money where they can get the most results, and it isn't in newspapers. If newspapers were to return to an absolutely objective reporting standard, and leave the opinions to the opinion page editor, then they might see a return of readership along with increased advertising dollars. Blaming the internet is NOT what caused their demise. It's their slanted, pro-left coverage that alienated a large chunk of their readership.

And to add to their misery, newspapers are the victim,partially, of the left's green agenda. Many folks I know stopped subscribing to "save trees and energy". They couldn't see the use of having a newspaper that was made from killing trees (I know, a renewable resource. I'm just pointing out the green's argument here) and how it took all sorts of "carbon expenditures" to make the paper and the ink and run the presses, etc. Besides there's that whole recycling thing. But I digress.

News papers need to find their way back to the objective standard and report just the facts, and let their readers decide. Until and unless they do that, they will be their own worst enemy.

Respects,

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I asked a prominent national reporter if she thought the press leaned to the left. She said perhaps a bit, but nothing like what the right wing accuses it of. And then she asked me something very interesting: "Why do you think it would be that a very large group of people who are more exposed to what is actually happening in the world than any other group of people, end up with a politic that leans to the left?"

Answer: Journalism school conditioning

This thread needs to either get back to the Globe or be closed.
I plead nolo contendre