House defunds NPR 236 to 181 (but...)

[TheBigA]

This lack of uniqueness and trustworthiness, coupled with an unrealistic online pricing structure, is reflected in The Times' dramatically decreased hard copy circulation and will result again in the failure of a Times paywall to achieve profitability.

And yet nytimes.com is among the Top 50 web sites in the world. And it's #1 among traditional newspaper sites.

Newspaper circulation is down everywhere. It's clearly more a function of changes in the way people get news rather than its "trustworthiness."

 

[uncamark]

This lack of uniqueness and trustworthiness, coupled with an unrealistic online pricing structure, is reflected in The Times' dramatically decreased hard copy circulation and will result again in the failure of a Times paywall to achieve profitability.

And yet nytimes.com is among the Top 50 web sites in the world. And it's #1 among traditional newspaper sites.

Newspaper circulation is down everywhere. It's clearly more a function of changes in the way people get news rather than its "trustworthiness."

Well, this is the guy who thinks that Drudge, NewsMax and Fixed Noise are examples of great journalism.

 

[musichead1029]

This lack of uniqueness and trustworthiness, coupled with an unrealistic online pricing structure, is reflected in The Times' dramatically decreased hard copy circulation and will result again in the failure of a Times paywall to achieve profitability.

And yet nytimes.com is among the Top 50 web sites in the world. And it's #1 among traditional newspaper sites.

Yep. And the NY Post is the #10 newspaper and foxnews.com is the #14 overall news site. Drudge is #21 overall news, although he's just a linker, but apparently a widely followed one by journalists and politicos.

Though I'm not sure what any of this has to do with trustworthiness.

Here's a Pew study that finds that just 29% of Americans say that news organizations generally get the facts straight, down from 55% in 1985. 63% say that news stories are often inaccurate, up from 34% in 1985. The Times is broken out for current impressions - most surveyed didn't know enough to rate the paper. Of the 46% who did register a rating, The Times came out with a 12% positive margin, the slimmest of the 6 general news sources rated.

Gallup finds a similar increase in negative impressions of the press over the past 12 years.

And that's before they're asked to pay for it online.

Ultimately, The Times pay website will sink or swim based on whether or not they hit the magic number of paying customers, whatever that is. It hasn't happened in previous attempts to cordon off the entire site or the columnists. And the trends don't look promising.

 

[TheBigA]

Drudge is #21 overall news, although he's just a linker, but apparently a widely followed one by journalists and politicos.

Same with Huffington Post. What's your point?

Though I'm not sure what any of this has to do with trustworthiness.

It has nothing to do with trustworthiness. It has to do with popularity. You said The Times doesn't have compelling unique content. I don't know if you've gone to their site lately and COUNTED the number of articles written by paid staffers, not bloggers or Associated Press, but it's more than FoxNews.com. The word "compelling" is subjective, but if they're beating just about everyone else in this category, I suggest they're doing a pretty good job at delivering compelling content that attracts millions of hits every day. So regardless of what you say, they're extremely popular.

As for the public's impressions of the press, it stinks. No question. It doesn't help that people simply don't know who to believe anymore. And it doesn't help that there are a lot of slanted news sources available today. Anyone with a computer and an opinion can call himself a journalist. That alone does a lot to hurt public impression. A handful of child abusers has done a lot to hurt the credibility of the church too. So what? Does that mean we should all quit going to church? The Pew study says 40% of the conservatives like NPR. That alone should make one question the study, no?

Here's the fact: The Times is currently spending millions of dollars on newsgathering, and basically giving its online site away for free. So any amount of money they're able to bring in will be gravy. Their mistake they made before was grouping certain columnists and features in a subscription package. The rest of the site was still free. Just like NPR, people like it for free. That's not the issue. The subscription money isn't going to replace advertising or any other income. It will augment it.

But my point here is that it's wrong to say that if people won't pay for something, then it's not worth having. Because we know that the public uses nytimes.com (regardless of what they say in polls), and they listen to NPR. Getting them to pay for it isn't a function of quality, uniqueness, or even trustworthiness. People trust a lot of things they're not willing to pay for. And the converse is also true. Paying for content is a major issue of our times. Record labels are struggling with it now. Who to charge and how to charge them? It would be so much easier to include it in your ISP bill. Just like a tax! Whether you use it or not, you pay a lump sum every month. I expect that when it's said and done, the percentage of subscribers to nytimes.com with be about the same as the percentage of listeners who subscribe to NPR. Jerry Del Colliano figured that when he put his music blog behind a pay wall. He wasn't getting advertiser revenue before the pay wall, so it's all gravy to him.

Bottom line here is: What difference does it make to you? You don't like the Times. So it doesn't matter. But don't jump to conclusions about the content because of money. Because the fact is that people wouldn't pay their taxes if they weren't afraid of going to jail.

 

[musichead1029]

You said The Times doesn't have compelling unique content.

I said The Times doesn't have enough unique and compelling content to support a paywall. That's not a slam on The Times. No general interest paper does. But The Wall Street Journal does, and the difference is that the WSJ has unique content that people use in their business and financial endeavors. Paying for the WSJ is paying money to make money. Any paper offering general interest content doesn't have that advantage. That's why a paywall hasn't and won't work well for The Times or any other general interest news provider.

Traditional journalists are getting things wrong, be it for ideological reasons or just through sloth, but the public has access to multiple sources of news and if one gets it wrong, another is going to correct it or clarify it pretty quickly. This is a good thing if you're not Dan Rather. A Drudge can highlight different news stories that might get lost in the swirl. A Huffington Post will do the same thing from a different point of view. The consumer has the opportunity to pick and assign weight to various sources and get the whole picture. Or part of the picture. Or a slice. But it works as a verification system. As the press gets used to this, they'll become better at getting it right, or they'll lose weight in the consumer selection process.

And despite the worsening polls, the press getting it wrong is nothing new - it's just that more people realize it. I was once part of a jury on a civil case, and on reading a news account, I realized that the reporter didn't even get the composition of the jury correct by sex. This was in a medium sized city at a heritage paper.

But my point here is that it's wrong to say that if people won't pay for something, then it's not worth having.

It may be worth having, but The Times is going to have to find a way to connect with the people who think it's worth having. Their news and features may have intrinsic value, but if the consumer can get something adequate elsewhere cheaper, they will. The Times either has to make its content unique and of value to potential subscribers, or find an audience that will subscribe to what they have now and superserve them. NPR and PBS already do the latter (which is why I want them to charge the subscriber, not the taxpayer). There will always be people who consume media that they aren't going to pay for. Media either accepts that, tries the firewall/superserve approach, or tries to develop an advertising paradigm that works online.

I'm not receptive to the notion that I should be required to pay for something unessential that a minority find necessary. The government already forces me to pay for a lot of stuff I think should be elective. And government involvement in newsgathering isn't going to help the trustworthiness issue in any way.

The news and entertainment media will have to find ways to live on without government mandated subsidies. Cable and satellite video delivery systems are starting to take measures to survive in a technological environment where their content will be readily available online. Newspaper and record companies should watch them.

(And I'm all for Jerry Del Colliano putting his blog behind a paywall. I just don't think the free aggregator sites should be linking to it - something I can't read without a credit card - unless they're getting a piece of the action. In which case they should 'fess up and mark it as paid content.)

 

[TheBigA]

The Times either has to make its content unique and of value to potential subscribers,

As I said, the content IS unique and compelling if based simply on the content alone, as demonstrated by the traffic report. And as I said, they recognize only a small number of people who like their content will pay for it, regardless of how much they value it. But that small percentage of frequent users will contribute enough to make it worth while. Once again, the paywall only kicks in for frequent users, which is what I'd suggest for npr.org. If they're frequent users, they're already presold. But the frequent users are a small minority. Same thing with NPR. THat's what differs this plan from the one they tried before.

I'm not receptive to the notion that I should be required to pay for something unessential that a minority find necessary.

Unfortunately that's the American system of government. So we all take the good with the bad, and we learn to live with it. And if there's a budget crisis, everyone takes a cut equally. Once again, I take issue with your judgement that it's "unessential." This is a country made up of minorities. The way we've been able to survive as a country with all these minorities is by accepting them and even protecting them in law. The government encourages and promotes diversity and choice, and this is a necessary part of that law. In the end, it's about tolerance and co-operation. And in a country where all the majority of the media is being eaten up by major corporations, the people need a choice that isn't. The way to ensure that is to provide a small amount of general assistance. You don't have to listen, but you do have to pay, in order to ensure and preserve choice.

 

[musichead1029]

The Times either has to make its content unique and of value to potential subscribers,

As I said, the content IS unique and compelling if based simply on the content alone, as demonstrated by the traffic report.

And, as I said, the content has to be of value to subscribers for a paywall to work. Traffic is nice, but it doesn't pay the bills unless you can leverage the eyeballs to support advertising. The Times' frequent user paradigm may be the best chance they have at making a paywall work. Noncommercial media can do the same thing, offering premium media features via their websites to subscribers that passive consumers don't get (maybe they do this already).

For noncommercial media, the math should work since they're adequately funding themselves already. For newspapers, the jury is still out. I don't think The Times is going to get the numbers they need, since most of their content is available in some form elsewhere for free. That doesn't slight what The Times is offering, it's just economic reality.

I'm not receptive to the notion that I should be required to pay for something unessential that a minority find necessary.

Unfortunately that's the American system of government. So we all take the good with the bad, and we learn to live with it. And if there's a budget crisis, everyone takes a cut equally. Once again, I take issue with your judgment that it's "unessential." This is a country made up of minorities. The way we've been able to survive as a country with all these minorities is by accepting them and even protecting them in law.

Yeah, I don't think we're going to agree on much here. You assign judgments of "good" and "bad", and you want to force me to pay for your judgments. I judge something unessential which doesn't prohibit you from considering it essential and funding it. The difference is, I don't presume that my cultural judgment requires your buy-in.

This country thrives without most of the multiculturalism problems that Europe experiences, because it offers its minority groups a chance to flourish through assimilation. "Diversity", "choice" and group-specific laws shouldn't be necessary constructs in an open society that aims to protect all people equally, based on them being people, not Members of Special Culture Group A or B. Those constructs were introduced as corrective measures, but now special interest groups use these constructs as leverages for inequity - special privilege. Though that kind of behavior is increasingly recognized as counterproductive, those who stand to profit from special privilege - primarily special interest groups and pandering politicians - aren't going to let go of special privilege provisions until forced to do so by an informed society.

Being a minority does not on its own make anyone special. Living legally in the U.S. gives you the opportunity to be part of something special. That doesn't mean that tailored protective laws and assistance aren't occasionally beneficial, but they should be the exception, not the rule. Assigning privilege based solely on group identity is ultimately counterproductive. That's a lesson that appears to be lost on many over several recent generations. Hopefully it's being re-learned by present children and grandchildren who are being forced to pick up the sizable tab for this institutionalized bias.

You don't have to listen, but you do have to pay, in order to ensure and preserve choice.

Being forced to pay for your "choice" doesn't sound like much choice for me. I think you're free to pay for your choice and encourage others to do so, but you're not free to force me to pay for it. This is a view that is going to have to eventually prevail, otherwise you run out of other people's money. We're getting to that point.

In short, there should be a high hurdle between my paycheck and every special interest group's idea of entitlement. And we need to set that hurdle higher, not just because it's the right thing to do, but because my paycheck's running low.

 

[TheBigA]

And, as I said, the content has to be of value to subscribers for a paywall to work.

It is...that's why people use the site rather than washingtonpost.com or latimes.com As I said, value isn't always a function of paying. As we've discovered in the music business.

Traffic is nice, but it doesn't pay the bills unless you can leverage the eyeballs to support advertising.

Their proposal is to do both. Have you not read their proposal? It's posted at their site and you can read it for free.

Plus they will continue to make the bulk of their money with print advertising. That's what's subsidizing the entire opration right now.

You assign judgments of "good" and "bad", and you want to force me to pay for your judgments.

No, the Congress and the government is forcing you to pay. I'm just a taxpayer like everyone else.

Being a minority does not on its own make anyone special.

You should really read the history of the United States, because we have over 150 years of legal and legislative precident that says you're wrong. And if any of these proposals get to become law, I'm sure they will be placed in front of judges who will point that out.

In short, there should be a high hurdle between my paycheck and every special interest group's idea of entitlement.

Fine. Where do I got for my refund for George Bush's wars and his billionaire tax breaks?

 

[listener-in]

.....but now special interest groups use these constructs as leverages for inequity - special privilege. Though that kind of behavior is increasingly recognized as counterproductive, those who stand to profit from special privilege - primarily special interest groups and pandering politicians - aren't going to let go of special privilege provisions until forced to do so by an informed society......

.....Living legally in the U.S. gives you the opportunity to be part of something special.

And guess which special interest group currently carry the most "leverage for inequity" in our society. It's the freeloaders at the top who have sucked income and wealth out of the working and middle class.

Earlier generations of leaders of our nation indeed gave us the opportunity to be "part of something special". In particular they set up a system of publicly funded education designed to give all, rich and poor alike, similar educational opportunities. They created a Post Office with heavily subsidized postage for printed matter, in order to help produce a literate and informed population. More recently they came up with the GI Bill which opened up educational doors to millions who would never have been able to pay for it in full, and in so laid the foundations for building the great American middle class - you know, the parents and grandparents of the current generation of whiners who don't want to pay taxes for anything that won't benefit them personally, because they feel they owe nothing to the society that made their way of life possible. Well, if you don't want to pay taxes for public libraries, public schools, public broadcasting, public museums, public galleries, public parks, etc. etc. etc., you might want to consider what your existence would have been like had earlier generations of Americans been so tight-fisted.

 

[TheBigA]

I can only imagine what the tea party thinks of the GI bill. "Let them pay for their own education!"