Forum Moderators: open
Following the News Corps paid-for-news thread [webmasterworld.com], here's a take on what future journalism may look like, in terms of delivering valuable news.
I was particularly interested in the question of excluding non-payers from news access, and the motivation for delivering quality as compared to scandal:
(mods, I'm not sure what constitutes "fair use", I've made an effort but possibly more cutting required)
Every news organisation - with the exception of the BBC - will start charging very soon for any information that has any proprietary element to it at all...Against that backdrop, much of what the BBC does - especially the stuff we do online - may look like unfair competition... although there is a counter argument.
...There already appears to be a consensus that in the provision of regional news there has been a massive market failure that will require state intervention and subsidy to rectify. But is that market failure limited to regional news?
Will the new paid-for online model inform and educate on hard issues - financial matters, but also medicine, the environment, education and so on - that matter to us, or will it concentrate on the more sensationalist and titillating bangs for the buck? And even if paid-for online services do endeavour to fill the gap created by the death of financial paternalism, will millions on low incomes be excluded from access to this information? Should we be relaxed if 'can't pay' means 'can't know'?
[emphasis mine]
I would expect many venues to offer some free content as well as free teaser versions of their premium content. I won't like it, but I think that is where we are headed.
