![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Walter Isaacson, writing in an essay that serves as this week's cover story in Time magazine (of which he used to be managing editor), asserts that the big reason newspapers around the country are hemorrhaging money even as their reader base grows is that more of those readers are consuming the dailies' reporting, features, opinions and services online than those who buy the dead-tree editions...and that said dailies are moronic enough to continue granting access to said content gratis.
The conventional wisdom has it that consumers won't pay for online content, no matter how valuable, either because web subscriptions and other current payment mechanisms are still too expensive and hassleful or because of the legendary "information wants to be free" ethos of the Web (which Harlan Ellison has maintained for years is claptrap, so this column ought to make him deliriously happy). Isaacson insists that unless newspapers find some way to defy that wisdom and get the crowds to pony up, the day will soon come when some major US metropoli will not have major metropolitan newspapers.
As a creative professional of nearly a quarter-century's standing myself, I can readily understand his desire to see journalists and the companies that employ them receive fair recompense for their labors. And as a newspaper junkie literally since the age of two (my mother claimed I was reading aloud phonetically from the local paper then; obviously, comprehension came later), I have always quite highly valued the contribution to civic life, responsible government and the nation's collective IQ that the industry provides....and would hate like the mischief to see it lost.
Isaacson seems to think that if newspapers can make micropayments for reading articles one-click easy, this will stave off the extinction of the species. If iTunes and Amazon can do it, he reasons, why shouldn't the Detroit Free Press or The New York Times be able to? His argument is that the papers need to figure out the mechanics and readers need to get over being used to freeloading if newspapers are not only to survive, but to remain focused on serving readers rather than advertisers (the latter group being the ones in charge under an ad-supported model).
What do you think? Is it time finally to wean ourselves off the endless digital gravy train? And is it doable?
The conventional wisdom has it that consumers won't pay for online content, no matter how valuable, either because web subscriptions and other current payment mechanisms are still too expensive and hassleful or because of the legendary "information wants to be free" ethos of the Web (which Harlan Ellison has maintained for years is claptrap, so this column ought to make him deliriously happy). Isaacson insists that unless newspapers find some way to defy that wisdom and get the crowds to pony up, the day will soon come when some major US metropoli will not have major metropolitan newspapers.
As a creative professional of nearly a quarter-century's standing myself, I can readily understand his desire to see journalists and the companies that employ them receive fair recompense for their labors. And as a newspaper junkie literally since the age of two (my mother claimed I was reading aloud phonetically from the local paper then; obviously, comprehension came later), I have always quite highly valued the contribution to civic life, responsible government and the nation's collective IQ that the industry provides....and would hate like the mischief to see it lost.
Isaacson seems to think that if newspapers can make micropayments for reading articles one-click easy, this will stave off the extinction of the species. If iTunes and Amazon can do it, he reasons, why shouldn't the Detroit Free Press or The New York Times be able to? His argument is that the papers need to figure out the mechanics and readers need to get over being used to freeloading if newspapers are not only to survive, but to remain focused on serving readers rather than advertisers (the latter group being the ones in charge under an ad-supported model).
What do you think? Is it time finally to wean ourselves off the endless digital gravy train? And is it doable?
