Peter Scheer used a full-page column in PRESSTIME to seriously suggest a 24-hour embargo for all news online. That way, he says, demand for newspapers will increase.
Our thanks to Scheer (who is, ironically, the executive director for the California First Amendment Coalition) for providing the best illustration of what happens when people get so wrapped up in saving printed pages that they disregard the purpose of journalism. Remember: journalists work at the pleasure of the people.
To benefit the greater good, the people have given up some control over their lives to government for making laws. And since the people all have full-time jobs, they let the media work on their behalf to provide oversight.
We’re not doing our jobs if when the market (an indicator of the people’s desires) wants news to be free online, then newspapers collude to build a paid wall.
When a man charged with protecting the First Amendment asks that all newspapers curtail their own speech, I have to wonder how he keeps his job. After all, his organization's slogan is, "Protecting and Defending the Public's Right to Know."
Here’s what Scheer wrote, believe it or not:
The first step in any strategy to extract value from newspapers’ content online is to stop giving it away. Many publishers know this instinctively, but they figure they can’t unilaterally discontinue unrestricted, free access as long as their competitors persist in giving their content away.What to do? Mainstream media outlets need to figure out a way, without running afoul of antitrust laws, to take collective action to shock users into an appreciation of the value of their content – and to follow that action with content distribution arrangements that reflect papers’ enhanced leverage.
My proposal: The metro papers and wires should agree to embargo their news content from the free Internet for a brief period – say, 24 hours --- after it is made available to paying customers.
Temporarily depriving the Internet of its only free sources of comparatively trustworthy and credible news in real-time would establish the true value of that information.
Even as Scheer wrote his column, smart organizations did just the opposite. Variety.com announced this month that it is removing the paid wall to its content. Worcester’s Telegram.com took down its paid wall last year. Expect more sites will do the same, especially in the magazine sector.
Scheer sent a similar letter to the San Francisco Chronicle in November.
Comments (3)
Scheer's proposition appeared online a while back ... it demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the economic model of print newspapers.
Subscribers don't pay for content. They pay for the service of delivery. They pay for the convenience of getting news on their doorsteps.
On the web, the inefficiencies of print are removed and the practical costs of delivery are eliminated. Readers understand this.
Meanwhile, they're paying for their own computers and broadband.
Except in rare cases, people aren't willing to pay for content. They expect advertisers to pay for that.
Posted by Howard Owens | February 12, 2007 9:12 PM
Posted on February 12, 2007 21:12
My intuition - backed by Internet trends - is that if a wall was constructed around all of the major media online venues, the tidal wave of citizen reporting would circumvent the entire old media encampment, with smart mob reputation rising quality reporting to the top.
Soon, the major media encampment would be drowned in its own delusion of control; their relevance a mere ledge in the bottom of the ocean the Cit J wave has already passed.
Posted by David Harris | February 13, 2007 12:12 AM
Posted on February 13, 2007 00:12
What David is getting at is the market wouldn't allow for a paid wall around everything. The market would support alternatives, namely citizen media.
If I were looking to start a citizen journalism site, I'd first find a newspaper that's charging to access its content online. Ripe for the picking.
Posted by Lucas | February 14, 2007 9:33 PM
Posted on February 14, 2007 21:33