Pay Us Because We Suck
Over the past decades a lot has been changed, from the first colour TV to mobile phones, and from the internet to mind control devices. Of course, not everything has changed, especially the news papers sticking to their old traditions.
Looking at how many other services, objects and other things evolved over the past decades, especially if you look at how many services embraced the internet, it’s shocking to see the newspapers haven’t done this in a way they should. They still rely heavily on printed forms of news. Not that this means it’s the end of the world, but it’s getting a bit out of control if they fail to improve their medium and want us to pay for it.
It may seem weird, paying for a medium that fails to improve itself. That would be a bit like paying a junkie because he can’t get rid of his addiction. However, it gets even worse.
In Holland a group of people are complaining that it’s our fault that the newspapers fail to improve themselves. If we take a look at the junkie example this would mean that not only we have to simply pay him money, but we have to pay him because it’s our fault he can’t stop using drugs.
The reason for all this? The internet.
The group that came up with this idea claims that every person in Holland that uses the internet has to pay a certain amount of money per year so that the newspapers can improve themselves. Even people who might never read the newspapers would still have to pay, whether they actually want it or not. Why? Because the group wants to make clear that the news they share isn’t free.
Of course, the last part makes sense. Those working for a newspaper have to feed a family too, just like any other person. But does that mean consumers have to be forced to pay money, rather than that the company changing it’s way of sharing information?
A great example of a company that embraced the internet for sharing news, rather than ignoring it and using plain paper, is the company behind the Dutch website Nu.nl
Nu.nl is a Dutch website aimed at sharing news for free. The articles aren’t always that good. In some cases you might actually wonder why on Earth certain articles have been published. But considering it’s free, and almost every article posted on other news websites/papers is posted there as well, it’s pretty damn awesome. Nu.nl mainly generates revenue by displaying advertisements, besides that it’s also backed up by a big media company also running several other big Dutch websites.
Nu.nl is a great example of how you can share news and still make money out of it. Don’t think this is the only way for a company that offers a free service to generate revenue – premium accounts, for example, is yet another method.
Charging people money for something they might never even use is plain wrong and I strongly doubt (and hope) it won’t be a accepted by the Dutch parliament. However, considering this country is ruled by a Harry Potter look-a-like and a bunch of idiots I’d say we all will be paying the newspapers so they can buy more expensive cars pretty soon.
We pay for stuff all the time we don't use. It's called taxes. In the states I pay for bridges in Alabama I will never drive on, studies on birds I will never see, research for diseases I will never have, etc.
I am not so sure a universal news tax is bad idea. Studies show that nations with high newspaper readership have lower levels of corruption in the government. We may look upon the failing newspapers and say “I told you so” for not embracing the internet, but these are the people with the news bureaus, the people on the ground collecting and reporting the news. Without them, we may end up in a dark place, and I certainly would not rely on the drugereport or digg to deliver what actually matters to me.
What is Nu.nl going to aggregated when there is no content left. State sponsored press releases? With no profitable bureaus to investigate the people who want to deliver their 'version' of the news to us, we might as well just stick out heads in the sand.
I have no problems with government subsidies for newspapers IF controls were in place that ensured the news wasn't politically influenced.
Newspapers can either innovate, consolidate or fail. There will always be a need for quality journalism. It's only a matter of how that journalism gets distributed and who ends up being the distributor.
I know there is a need for quality journalism, but there may not be a desire for it. Look how quickly Michael Jackson pushed Iran to the inside pages. If you give the people what they want, then you end up with bullshit, pundit based, topical journalism. If you don't give the people what they want, then you go out of business.
This is why some of the best, and hard hitting journalism out of the mainstream media has come from NPR and PBS, which is largely government funded.
I don't think newspapers should hold the space in the freemarket as the snuggie. If only the newspaper companies were banks, then they might be too big to fail.
Government funded doesn't always work, especially in countries where there is no freedom of speech *ehem* Malaysia. Over here, media licences are renewed annually, and there have been cases where they're not renewed simply because they didn't toe the line.
It's a laugh reading the papers here. All the articles are, xxx said x xxx xxx. No analysis or hard-hitting journalism, save possibly for some mild investigative journalism.
For that purpose, the freedom loving far rights have moved to online blogging and journalism (much to the chagrin of the ruling party). Some of them is pay-for-access, while others are free. These are 2 extremes where both are equally biased in opposite directions.
I think Rich is right, the need is for unbiased journalism rather than newspapers that don't report anything truly useful for the nation.