The writer of this LA Times Business opinion piece believes that free news content on the internet will be the downfall of journalism, and that news companies should start charging for content online.
Not surprisingly, I disagree. The downfall of one form of news reporting (one that requires “an editorial staff of roughly 890”) does not mean the end of news, nor does the LA Times have a god given right to report the news how it wishes.
Mr. Lazarus confuses information with content. Information just exists on the internet - it cannot be monopolized, and can be accessed by anyone. Yes, there was a time where access to information about places afar was limited, and newspapers built themselves around providing access to that information – ‘news.’ Once that monopoly has been broken, content changes. In a world where information is everywhere, content becomes how that information is presented – both imagistically (why TV networks seem to be doing OK – they have high production values and unparalleled use of visuals), and ideologically (blogging is paradigmatic of one successful business model). Essentially, content on the internet means dealing with how information is used, not merely giving information – news outlets can specialize towards using interesting or effective writers, but cannot depend on limiting access to content to create revenue. Sites like BoingBoing or BuzzFlash! show how internet content involves sorting and describing information, not merely creating it. (A NYT article proves this point: sports news is the ultimate commodity – its only stats and scores at its core. In response, ESPN and other outlets have focused on hiring better commentary talent, creating a unique, vastly profitable ‘brand’ identity)
The job of the news reporter should be to respond to readers, not demand that readers pay for what is already free.
No comments:
Post a Comment