Globe to start charging to read Boston.com?

[Gwedd]

Answer: Journalism school conditioning

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

Concur. On all counts.

Respects,

 

[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.

Maverick...say more about how you see this future of a wall around news?? And how this could happen?? I really do NOT see HOW any story coould be so surrounded and walled?? I think maybe yaers ago that would have been MORE possible..but HARDLy possible now. Naybe AP would love a situation like that..but..take a bigger look with the net..youtube, blogs..no news organization OWNS the news..(unless you have a special investigative unit with special reports; exclusive interviews..) I think it's an interesting notion..but impossible to happen..and what of the million news cast radio TV?? are they going to vanish??

 

[Pats726]

Maybe someone can explain more about the economics of newspapers in some sense..obviously with the net it has changed considerably...but if selling newspapers and teh income from that is "chump vhange"...then why double teh price within a year...5- cents to a dollar? If teh income generated is so little from that.. by rasing the price the number sold I am sure has gone down considerably... If the circulation has gone down doesn't that drive advertising proces down as well? Maybe this wishing to charge for online use is a reaction to the poor income generated by the raising of the price to a dollar?? Why has the advertising money lowered? (Besides the ecomomy in general...)Just curious in as to the factors forces involved in that..online an din print...

 

[lurker1965]

Saw that - can't really believe it. Truth ? I'll stop going. Will come here all the time to see what people are saying about their articles. Ridiculous. Time for Reiss to jump ship before it's too late.

I second this.

 

[lurker1965]

Can we really look Mike Riess in the eye and suggest that we have a right to his work product without paying for it? He's very good at his craft, and should get paid in a manner that reflects that.

...

If at 1 pm he breaks a story the at 1:02 everybody else has "According to Mike Reiss..."

If it costs 1 penny, I can wait for the "According to Mike Reiss...*"

*Well, ESPN won't credit him, but ethical businesses will.

 

[lurker1965]

One of the consequences of this trend is that the system won't be producing the great sports writers that I've grown to love over the decades of reading sports. We just won't see any more like Povich, Murray, DeFord, Collins, etc. They will get sidetracked to TV before they elevate their writing to an art.

We get TONS of news mcnuggets about the Pats, but when was the last time you read a column that had you so wrapped up in the story it told that you lost track of where you were and what time it is? That you felt a sense of loss when you finished it?

...

Sports Illustrated. Seriously. Girls college baseball? I'm not a fan but reading about the girl carried around the bases by her opponents was good writing.

One problem is the change in sports. Today the story about Tinkers, Evans, and Chance would be about Tinker's DUI, Evans' not signing autographs because of trade rumors, and Chance's hold out.

Good stories are, unfortunately in things like Women's competitive tiddly-winks. Sports we follow are ruined forever by money. (Yes, even NCAA Div. 1)

 

[lurker1965]

Actually, what other options do you have? Take Patriot news reporting for instance. Reiss is the best at what he does, and if the Globe put a wall around his content and forced you to pay, what other reporter would you turn to? What if all reporters began monetizing their news? All you'd be left with are the aggregator and discussion sites talking about the news, but being unable to show what was actually reported. People will pay for the news.

Are some of you blind? Have you ever seen how information transmission works?

Yes, Reiss is good. He isn't getting exclusive info.

If at 1:00 Reiss reports that the Patriots re-signed Seau* at 1:02 Andy Hart at Patriots.com is telling us that according to Reiss.

If it costs me a plugged nickel, I'll wait the two minutes.

If the Globe somehow manages to wall off Reiss, then at 1:20 Eric Scalavino is reporting they signed Seau without referencing Reiss because he got the story from the same source. I can wait 20 minutes too.

* The Seau bit is just a hypothetical example.

 

[lurker1965]

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.

At the risk of enjoining a political discussion, the bias creeping from the opinion page is why I stopped reading the paper. I remember the story. It referenced "necessary" tax increases. (a local issue that I won't get into here)

It did not point out services paid for or even attempt to make the case that the tax increase was necessary - the writer might even have succeeded. It just threw an adjective before tax increase and reporting done.

I've led no boycott, but I doubt I was alone noting adjectives creeping into "neutral" stories. (Oh, I don't mean like "blue", I mean like "good" and its synonyms.)

So despite your insisting that is not the cause, I've read several people say it was. Add to that my own experience and your, "Newspapers aren't going under because of biased content" assertion rings false.

Now back to discussions of Mike Reiss.

 

[lurker1965]

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.

Assuming a comet hit every local newspaper in New England and every reporter died in the tragedy,

Do you think the sources dry up or will agents and their ilk try to get "news" out through you? Do you think "officially leaked" stuff might be uncovered by house reporters until a "relationship" can be forged?

Hey, I'm not talking about intrepid reporter uncovering a scam by a local mayor to flip real estate or something. Do you think the Patriots are giving exclusive access to any local reporter?

 

[Gwedd]

Maybe someone can explain more about the economics of newspapers in some sense..obviously with the net it has changed considerably...but if selling newspapers and teh income from that is "chump vhange"...then why double teh price within a year...5- cents to a dollar? If teh income generated is so little from that.. by rasing the price the number sold I am sure has gone down considerably... If the circulation has gone down doesn't that drive advertising proces down as well? Maybe this wishing to charge for online use is a reaction to the poor income generated by the raising of the price to a dollar?? Why has the advertising money lowered? (Besides the ecomomy in general...)Just curious in as to the factors forces involved in that..online an din print...

Newspapers make the lion's share of their income from advertising dollars. Some, in fact, make ALL their income from that source, for example, those free local newspapers and niche papers you see here and there.

Now, papers hook those advertisers into paying by running articles that excite the readership, or provide information in one place that folks used to not be able to get anywhere else. TV listings, movie reviews, HS sports reporting, recipies, obituaries, "about town gossip" etc. This had folks subscribing to the paper, and the larger the subscription base, the more people would see the ads (or potentially see them).

Papers originally charged a subscription fee based upon delivery costs, and a couple pennies extra. The larger the subscriber base, the more ads they could rake in and the more they could charge for those ads.

When people started to drop subscriptions, papers initially responded by increasing subscription rates. That just caused more people to leave, initiating the death spiral. s subscribers left, advertisers took note and scaled back their spending in papers. That money started to go to radio, the intertubes, and TV instead. With more people tuning in to television, TV execs were able to adjust pricing to allow for more local advertising, which you may have noticed the past several years.

It's all relative. Right now, papers need to find a way to geberate income, and their best place, presently, is online. A couple of major regional newspapers have already gone completely online, dropping their print copy. We'll see how that works out, but it appears to me that that will be the future of all news, except for some select local markets, like those free ones you get at grocery stores, etc.

respects,

 

[lurker1965]

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

I forget the article, and it is old.

But something like 74% of people got their news from Johnny Carson's monologue. (I said it was old.)

New paper's demise can be traced back to I Love Lucy. Heck, maybe even Lone Ranger on radio.

Don't believe me. Look at newspaper mergers. For instance the St. Louis Post-Dispatch was once two papers. Then competition came and they contracted. The competition back then was not the all evil Internet.

 

[Gwedd]

Assuming a comet hit every local newspaper in New England and every reporter died in the tragedy,

Do you think the sources dry up or will agents and their ilk try to get "news" out through you? Do you think "officially leaked" stuff might be uncovered by house reporters until a "relationship" can be forged?

Hey, I'm not talking about intrepid reporter uncovering a scam by a local mayor to flip real estate or something. Do you think the Patriots are giving exclusive access to any local reporter?

Besides the official reports from the Patriots PR staff, and stuff released at their pressers and through their web site, there's all those players and staff. Good reporters new long ago how to make friends with friends of players, bar and club owners, hotel clerks, etc. Not everything stays in Vegas, and there is always a way to find information. Heck, don't forget police blotters either

News will be available, but developing the story and how it gets out is what will be interesting to see. The blogs and other such sources as PatsFans will certainly play a bigger role inthat.

Again, it comes down to credibility. If PatsFans continues with it's high standards (and I have NO reason to doubt that, just postulating), and other blogs and sources prove to be credible as well, then folks will migrate away from paying sites to these for their news. And advertisers and their money will follow suite.

 

[maverick4]

I really do NOT see HOW any story coould be so surrounded and walled?? I think maybe yaers ago that would have been MORE possible..but HARDLy possible now. Naybe AP would love a situation like that..but..take a bigger look with the net..youtube, blogs..no news organization OWNS the news..

I beg to differ. Look at how effective the Wall Street Journal has been in putting a wall around its content. You can't read any of the WSJ articles without a paid account now, and hardly any news aggregator, discussion, or opinion sites can access their material, only reference it with short snippets. Most news references or uses the Associated Press. If they decide to put a wall around their content, and look at who you would go to for news, there really aren't a lot of quality choices left. You'll have a ton of sites gossiping/talking about the news, without being able to reference or quote the source very much.

Youtube and blogs are not going to replace professional full-time reporters. You still need educated professionals who specialize in investigating and reporting all sorts of news on specialized topics. There will be lots of talented and passionate hobbyists who will add value in terms of commentary and occasional news, but there will still be a need for professionally delivered news.

 

[Ian]

Do you think the sources dry up or will agents and their ilk try to get "news" out through you?

One could only hope, but highly unlikely since they have their own website

Do you think the Patriots are giving exclusive access to any local reporter?

Again, the team at that point would keep all the information in house and only release what they wanted us to know. Which is what makes a good beat reporter so great for us as fans. We find out a lot of things they don't want us to

 

[maverick4]

If PatsFans continues with it's high standards (and I have NO reason to doubt that, just postulating), and other blogs and sources prove to be credible as well, then folks will migrate away from paying sites to these for their news. And advertisers and their money will follow suite.

Patsfans mostly links to other news sites which employ professional reporters. If these sites start controlling content, a lot of threads here won't be as meaningful/useful. Even Chris Price here can't keep reporting news if the model itself keeps losing money. Media employing professional reporters are going to have to charge for online content.

 

[Ian]

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.

That will never happen. Every news station on earth quotes reports from various news sources, and credits the source of the information. Not only that, but if you read something and then tell someone else about it in your own words, there's nothing wrong with that provided you say where you found the information. They'll also never prevent people from being allowed to link back to them, because most news articles gain traffic through "word of mouth" (ie: being emailed or linking to from blogs, messageboards, etc.) since that simply makes no sense. Word of mouth is the leading way that most people find out about news - that's just a fact that I'm sure they'll have to realize before they try anything.

I think the biggest problem is the fact most people don't get internet copyrights and misinterpret "fair use". So many people cut and paste full articles, it's ridiculous and you just can't do it. People also illegally use photos all the time, you see it all over. I used to pay the AP for photo use, but at the cost per month they wanted, along with when we switched to this server, I couldn't afford to continue doing it. You can't just take a photo, copy it, resize it, and post it in a blog or an article so you have a photo to go with your article. Yet people get away with it - it's very irritating, especially when I was paying for the right to use them to try and stay in compliance with these laws.

Anyway, I got a bit off track, but I think it's safe to say that you will likely start seeing more media sites start clamping down on copying and pasting full articles in forums, blogs, etc. Some people take the term "snippet" a bit to lightly and "snip" far too much. Unless someone here knows a good lawyer it's a policy that we'll continue to enforce - so please don't do it

But as far as the AP not even allowing people to talk about their content and link to it, I just can't see it. I understand they're all excited because they grabbed the exclusive licensing for images for the NFL during the offseason, but I think preventing people from quoting and linking to them wouldn't be wise. Needless to say I don't forsee that coming to fruition.

Ian

 

[Ian]

Patsfans mostly links to other news sites which employ professional reporters. If these sites start controlling content, a lot of threads here won't be as meaningful/useful.

Again, it's the large number of eyes here who find the majority of news stories on the internet and then tell us about them and include a link with their post. From time to time when we write a column, if you look at the referring traffic if a story spikes, it's always because someone read it, mentioned it elsewhere in another forum, and then linked to it. Messageboards and social networks I believe have the highest referral rate to most news organization websites.

I think what they need to do is to create a better online classifieds system, which would allow them a stream of income they don't have. Most newspaper sites don't have a good one, which is why people seek other sources. They should have done that years ago before Craigslist grabbed such a foothold. But my mom and dad wouldn't use Craigslist, they'd check the local paper, and they even click the "Classifieds" button online when they're looking for something. However, look at most Classifieds sections and see how confusing they are. They're just not done well. I'm still surprised they never made the shift when the trend began, especially when most of their employees got caught up posting on Ebay themselves.

I also read that they should just allow you to set up an account like on Amazon.com (I think it was Mark Cuban who suggested this) where if you want to renew your subscription to the paper, or buy a product, you just click that you want it instead of having to fill out a form each time. Most people don't want to be bothered with worrying about mailing in money or paying the paper boy/girl, or having to fish out their credit card everytime they want to make a purchase. That's how most subscriptions likely expire - and that part is preventable. People still buy and read the paper (we do), and walk through a supermarket at the end of the day - most paper areas are usually sold out, save for a few copies. I enjoy reading newspapers, magazines, even moreso than staring at my computer screen. But I would say I enjoy reading features and editorials - good opinion columns. Like on Monday, I know the Patriots won/loss. I like reading other columnists take on the game and what they think went wrong, and what they did/didn't like about the game that maybe I didn't notice. That's what they also need to focus on.

 

[Ian]

I beg to differ. Look at how effective the Wall Street Journal has been in putting a wall around its content. You can't read any of the WSJ articles without a paid account now, and hardly any news aggregator, discussion, or opinion sites can access their material, only reference it with short snippets.

Good point, and that's because the WSJ has unbelievable writers and columnists, who are also focused on areas that require extremely intelligent people to be able to give an accurate and insightful report on the information they're providing. That's how they do it, and that's why their circulation is so strong and why their plan works.

 

[Deus Irae]

That's because the WSJ has unbelievable writers and columnists, who are also focused on areas that require extremely intelligent people to be able to give an accurate and insightful report on the information they're providing. That's how they do it, and that's why their circulation is so strong and why their plan works.

It's also a specialty paper in regards to its target audience, and that makes a difference.

 

[Ian]

It's also a specialty paper in regards to its target audience, and that makes a difference.

I agree :yeahthat: