weekly new digital media story

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/oct/13/james-murdoch-google-piracy

James Murdoch attacks Google over piracy links

Former News Corp chairman says search engines such as Google could do more to remove links to piracy sites

James Murdoch has joined the News Corp attack on whether search engines such as Google are doing enough to remove links to piracy sites.

The youngest son of media boss Rupert echoed comments made by News Corp chief executive Robert Thomson when he wrote to European competition commissioner Joaquín Almunia calling Google a “platform for piracy” sparking a response from the internet giant claiming it “has done more than almost any other company to help tackle online piracy”.

“There’s no question that they can do more. A lot more. Certainly Google’s not right in saying they’re doing more than anyone. That just isn’t true,” he said.

“The problem with Google ... Actually, let’s not personalise this. The problem with search-driven discovery, if the content is there and it’s illegal and you’re just selling clicks as a big ad network, you have every incentive for that illegal programming to be there. That’s fundamentally not really good enough.”

Murdoch supported Thomson’s calls for more support from regulators for the creative and media industries over tackling piracy.

“It’s important for governments to take it very seriously, for regulators to take it very seriously, and for infringers to be taken seriously, and for those who enable infringement to be held accountable,” said Murdoch, 

Personally I don't really see what Murdoch's issue with Google is, other than bitterness at the fact that Google make so much money off of advertisements whereas newscorp and newspaper institutions in general are losing money due to the lack of advertising. 

James Murdoch/Rupert Murdoch Pay wall articles

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jQxGe_uDYgYDkZLo9Rc8FUgC6DAGsFoWt5qF_HVYdgQ/edit
http://www.themediabriefing.com/article/times-digital-subscribers-reach-140-000-as-paywall-project-reaches-maturity

1. As a consumer of news I completely disagree with James Murdoch that the BBC should make users pay for their news as we must pay for it through our TV licence, why should we not be entitled to news that in truth isn't actually free. Also in my opinion the news should be a right for people to know as it is essential for people to be aware of current affairs whether its local or national.

However if I was to look at it from a business point of view or from James Murdoch's point of view I completely understand his opposition to the BBC providing news for free. Whilst the BBC provides free content the newspaper industry and other institutions will continue to decline and lose money as people will refuse to pay for their content, as they can simply get it from the BBC for free.

2. I think that Rupert Murdoch was right to put the Times behind a pay wall as to survive he must be able to generate revenue and the only way to do this is through a pay wall subscription. His move can be seen as fairly successful in that he has gained 140,000 subscriptions, however even this many subscribers is making the Times and Sunday Times barely any profit and it is still continuing to lose money.

Economist article - future of newspapers

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

The article begins by outline the concern of the newspaper industry's decline. It states that due to the evolution of media and the internet print forms of news are losing much of their advertising and newspapers are ow losing money. The author says that eventually even major institutions may become bankrupt and the print form altogether will get scrapped, quoting a book that estimates 2043 as the year news print dies. As a result newspapers have continuously cut jobs year on year and argues that journalism has suffered as a result.

However he argues that the newspaper decline is not as bad as people may think. He states that major institutions such as the New York Times and Washington Post could afford to increase their prices to make up for lost revenue to the internet due to their large global audience. He also talks about how the new found ability for anyone to express themselves through blogs as an advantage for people and a positive. He also states that in the future non profit organisations may back quality journalists and newspapers to ensure their work is published and does not go bust.

I agree that the decline of print news si a cause for concern and not a reason for panic, because in my opinion, is it really necessary to keep newspapers? Of course it is sad to see such a previously well established and loved form of media be lost but is it not inevitable? I personally don't see how the end of newspapers is a reason for panic, perhaps because I was born in a generation when new media flourished, but a majority of people already don't read newspapers and use new media; tablets, computers, phones, apps, etc; for their news, therefore once the older generations have died, will there even be a market for newspapers any more? I doubt and and I honestly don't think it's going to have much of an effect on society and people stating the decline of newspapers is cause for panic are arguing because of the newspaper forms sentimental value as opposed to its actual effects on society.

weekly new digital media story

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/06/free-speech-anonymously-troll-strangers-mccann-dossier

Does free speech give us the right to anonymously troll strangers?

The article talks about the recent case in which an internet troll Brenda Leyland was exposed as a troll of the McCann family and was recently found dead after suicide. The article questions whether social media gives people too much freedom to express the views due to the provenance of "trolling" online. The article talks about how trolling has now become an almost accepted part of social media in that if you are a social media you will be exposed to trolling. However despite being a majority harmless and in jest, some of it can be extremely threatening and scary for individuals who receive threatening messages and hate speech that can seriously affect the victim.

In my opinion this is one of the issues with new and digital media and social networks in that it can not be strictly regulated and people can say whatever they want, even if it is offensive and this can sometimes have serious effects on the victims. 

'Build The Wall article

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

Section 1 of the article gives David Simon's opinion that all newspapers should act cohesively, possibly even merging into one organisation and that they should then all put up pay walls for all of their content so that people do not simply go elsewhere to get their news for free. This may revitalise the print form of news as people can no longer simply gain news for free, and he states that those who do post news for free should be sued for copyright.

Section 2 states that if online subscriptions and paywalls only offered local news there would be no market for it, but if it also included international and world news that could not be accessed elsewhere there will be. He also states that again that all newspapers must do this together and at the same time, as if one does put up a pay wall and another doesn't, the one with the pay wall will suffer massively and the other profit from extra readers due to the free content. He also questions whether this would work, is society willing to pay for something they see as rightly free? However states that the risks are minimal compare to the state of current print news. He states that this idea would not fail as the internet has given the news a larger audience that ever before with more people now reading the news online due to its availability online, if there was a paywall those who want the news can buy it online the same way they would a newspaper.

He then goes on to compare the situation to the evolution of television. Initially the idea of paying for television would have seemed farcical yet now almost everyone pays monthly fees for cable television. He states that the reason for subscription channels and the demand for it is because if you pay more, you get more channels and the newspaper industry should adopt a similar approach. He also states the lack of money gained from free new media news has led to a massive decline in the quality of journalism, compared to the paid journalists who published in print newspapers previously.

Section 3 Simons speaks about how the issue started, in that newspapers initially set up their sites and gave news for free online in the vision that people would read their content online and then want to but the newspaper. He states that newspapers should offer online content cheaper to the cost it would take to have newspapers delivered to their doorstep, and if it can not be delivered then the online price should increase. He states that although newspapers may lose readers, the new format would still be profitable due to the amount of money made through subscriptions.

In section 4 Simons gives the three possible outcomes of his proposed format

1 - It is a success and the newspaper industry begins to improve again with newspapers turning to a paywall, leading to them investing more money into their print format and as a result covering more local and even neighbourhood news.

2- Many regional newspapers go bust leaving a vacuum taken up by new regional online paywall newspapers that generate a healthy income and uses its profit to pay for high quality local journalism

3 - The format fails completely and only the major institutions are able to survive on their subscriptions and all regional journalism and papers go bust due to the lack of audience and subscribers.



In my opinion I agree that if all newspapers did put up a paywall for their news it would slowly revitalise the print format and perhaps increase the standard of journalism. However I agree with Simon's view that this can only work if carried out by all newspapers cohesively, as if one single newspaper does not follow, people will simply look at their content because it is free. If everyone did it people would not have a choice but to pay the subscription fees as news is essential to everyone, so subscriptions are guaranteed. However where I disagree is his view that local journalism will thrive under this format and that people will pay for local newspaper subscriptions. Most people are only going to only subscribe to the major institutions, the Guardian, The Independent, etc. Unless these websites begin to also provide local journalism and stories, which is highly unlikely and almost impossible unless all major news institutions merged into one, local newspapers online will not thrive. Using myself as an example, I would only subscribe to a major institution such as the Guardian for my news and wouldn't bother subscribing to the Ealing Gazette as I wouldn't see it as necessary compare to national and world news, and I think others would be the same. Simon's does also not take into account the varying economic power in different areas and regions, rich areas may be able to afford to pay for a local newspaper subscription, whereas poorer areas not able to afford it and as a result their regional or local online newspaper closing down. Is it fair to have rich areas access to local news but not others? Would this not mean that journalism in rich areas is of far more quality than a journalist writing for a poorer local newspaper? I think their are flaws within the system in that people are likely to only subscribe to major institutions however I do think if carried out cohesively by all newspapers it would certainly help bring back the print media as a popular source of news.


Comments

I understand the frustration, and there is a lot in this piece, but subscription is not the way to go. What the Times and the Post report is not inherently valuable, value is relative and subjective. News is free and a portion of the times is simply news. Journalism - Business, Arts, Books, Movies, Travel, Sports, etc, - is not free, but its value is hard to pinpoint making a site wide subscription fallacious.

Lionel Barber, Editor, FT, indicated at a media even last night that the FT is seeing growing revenue from frequency model pricing, meaning readers get a certain number of articles free and then must begin to pay. This strategy is not as granular as what many people espousing micropayments are pushing for, but its got its head in the right place.

Your argument that for example, The Baltimore Sun push readers online by charging more for the physical newspaper and its delivery, either ignores or misses that strength of the internet - profits from fragmentation. I can go to iTunes and buy a variety of genres of music in the smallest possible form - a song - and get a discount for buying in bulk - an album. Journalism can work in the same way. I can buy one technology article or I can buy the whole section for the day or the week at a discount.

Now is not the time for ultimatums and traditional thinking. There is a solution that makes people pay, we both agree that needs to happen. Let's do it in a way that will make people really love and appreciate journalism again instead of bullying them into subscriptions and turning off a new generation of Americans to the pleasure of reading the Times Sunday Arts section.

This comment agrees with the idea that newspapers need to set up paywalls however states that the way in which newspapers should make users pay should be a way in which they are not forced to subscribe, an example being where they can read a number of articles before having to pay.


Most of the folks writing about the paywall issue are assuming that because only 5-10 percent of the current online readership will sign up for web content, it will be a failure. Actually, the folks behind the paywall effort don't care if anyone signs up for online content. The entire point is to push people into print subscriptions. It could be that some newspapers or groups won't even offer an online-only option. It will just be a free giveaway with print.

This comment neither agrees or disagrees with the pay wall but thinks that it is simply a strategy used by newspapers to push people towards the print format.

If news were not free, there would be enough people willing to pay for it to cover the cost of producing it. But suppose the New York Times suddenly started charging for online access; althought it is a great newspaper, I probably wouldn't pay for it. There are just too many free alternatives that are almost as good. Even if (for example) no other online news source were as good as the Times, the remaining news sources will collectively fill the gap. 

This person is against the paywall as he claims that he and most people will not pay for he news and therefore the paywall will fail.