Filed under: Ways To "Save" Journalism? | Tags: Google, J.O., journalism, Journalism 24/7, Journalism Online, journalists, micropayments, model, New York Times, News Corporation, NYT
Journalism Online is a service that will ideally help news publishers to capitalize on their online content. They don’t actually supply content–they are a kind of PayPal-like middleman between readers and online news providers.
Their model presents a centralized place to pay, instead of subscribing to each individual outlet. J.O.’s service “allows customers to have one easy-to-use account common to all the publishers’ websites.”
As of right now, J.O. has quite a lot of intererested publishers (like News Corporation, Google and I.B.M. to name a few, as reported by the New York Times), and a press release in September by J.O. reported that they had recieved over 1,000 letters of intent from various magazines, newspapers and online news sites.
It looks like plently of news organizations are ready to set sail on the S.S. Journalism Online, with the fine details of costs and methods of charging yet to be hammered out. It’s a big risk for content providers, to be sure–but the fear of losing readers was one of the things that got them into this big mess to begin with, so I think that every media outlet should jump aboard.
It’s important that reputable news outlets are all in solidarity about charging for their online content–otherwise, many consumers will just keep subsisting on the free stuff. I think the informed ones among us would agree that we just can’t live without good, quality news. If there’s no substitute for it, we’ll undoubtedly pay for it. For right now, however, it’s just a matter of smart personal-spending–one doesn’t want to pay for something if they can get it somewhere else for free.
In conclusion: If they would agree, I would agree. Journalists unite!
Filed under: General Commentary | Tags: Internet, journalism, Journalism 24/7, Journalism Online, micropayments
How great would it be if Journalism Online’s model came to fruition? What if it was the portal to every reputable newspaper and magazine? There’d be no confusion over whether I’d subscribed here or gotten 15 article credits here: Just one centralized account, with one password, one username, one way to pay, and one place to keep track of it all.
Not only would I be doing my part to save journalism (and my future career), but I’d be able to atone for my past “sins” against the industry: Accepting their products for free. If it’s a cent or a nickel here or there, that’s petty cash that just about anyone can spare. Like I said before, if I can’t get it anywhere else, I’ll cough it up.
My mother was telling me that it’s a novelty for her generation to get anything for free–the Internet and its services are mindblowing to the 35+ group. Free music? Free web hosting? Free videos? Free shipping? Free pictures? Free news articles? Astounding. The under-30 generation expects it, but the 30+ group expects to be charged somewhere.
Professor Selvin brought up the good point that the Internet was created for free communications. That is true, yet newspapers and the like were designed to make a profit. Everybody wants their piece of the pie, and journalists are increasingly deciding they do too.
And why should anyone withold it?