Online news might no longer be free soon. Media bigs hold "discreet" meeting today

[AlexanderProgressive]

The Atlantic reports:

Shhhh. Newspaper publishers are quietly holding a very, very important conclave today. Will you soon be paying for online content?
"Models to Monetize Content" is the subject of a gathering at a hotel which is actually located in drab and sterile suburban Rosemont, Illinois...

http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/james_warren/2009/05/shhhh_newspaper_publishers_are_quietly_holding_a_very_very_important_conclave_today_will_you_soon_be.php

Leaving aside the newspapers' right to make money, I don't like this. I'll be much misinformed than I am now if this happens. And so will you. I also think the more informed an electorate is, the more likely it is to pick a better candidate.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. Their business model is failing...they rail against blogs and other citizen journalists

They claim a level of professionalism and fairness that is rarely if ever seen. Part of me thinks that the elitists among them have some of this coming.

[zipplewrath]

3. Poorly understood model

It's almost as if they don't understand their own business model. They can try to "charge" for the content they produce, but they didn't make money on their content, they made money on advertising. They were a delivery service for advertising. Their problem now is they don't have the "corner" on bringing eyes to ads. They'll have to figure out how to charge for the content they provide, but they'll also have to understand that the content they provide has a much smaller value than they think. Like so many things, it is the person that packages that content in a way that brings eyes to the ads that will make the money.

[mainer]

2. It takes money to pay good reporters and photographers.

And yes, reporters and photographers deserve to be paid for their labors. I don't begrudge the newspaper industry trying to stay in business. I too want information, but I want GOOD information, for which I'm willing to pay the price of a newspaper subscription (if only I could get home delivery!)

You get what you pay for. And if it's free, you have to question how good it is.

Newspapers need to go back to paid subscriptions, both print and online, or they'll die. The Wall Street Journal continues to charge for online access, and they continue to be healthier than papers that don't charge.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

4. A bit off-topic but "sterile" isn't a word that comes to mind when I think of Rosemont.

[DavidDvorkin]

5. If they charge for access to their sites

then their sites will dwindle in importance. As long as free sites are available, traffic will go there.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

6. Maybe the media sites need Grovelbot!

:rofl:

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

7. If they are holding quiet meetings in order to alter an entire industry

how is this NOT a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and a restraint of trade? We wake up tomorrow and oops! suddenly no access to online news without a subscription. I guarantee that they will also attempt to alter "fair use" rules and/or will deny anyone the ability to aggregate different sources. Who will lose? The American citizen seeking access to unfettered information.

Do "they"( you know, them) want an informed electorate with research abilities at their fintertips? Hardly!

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

8. kick!