Anybody else think he is going to run into major problems and lose market share from this boondoggle?
Printable View
Anybody else think he is going to run into major problems and lose market share from this boondoggle?
Fail miserably. Especially when better news sites like the BBC are still free.
yes, and good. nasty republican chap, don't like him.
What is this on about?
making you have a pay account to access The Times Online website, among others.
We can only hope.
I think its a brilliant idea and he has my full support!
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Does this mean we won't have links to Fox News in Backroom discussions?
Well, as a student in journalism, and despite being a leftist hippie, I think this is a good move.
Informations isn't made for free, journalists aren't voluntary workers. Since it's quite obvious by now that advertising can't and won't be enough to fund a free press, going back to paying content is an option. I'm not saying it's the only possible economic model for online journalism, but so far, the "free for the customer + advertising" model is a complete fail. No single website is living off it.
Sites like Gamespot and IGN live off of a hybrid system. They are very popular and offer most features for free HOWEVER the really neat features are charged for through premium accounts. I believe fully in a "free to customer + advertisement model" coupled with a rather excessively pricey "patron + added benefit model" and maybe somethign in between. When you make all content "for pay" you cut off your best writers from their base, and most writers don't jsut write for pay, but to spread their ideals and opinions. Who would want to be limited to a small group of like minded individuals when you were already reaching massive global audiences.
I have always believed that most everything should be free plus ads. I have also always believed that a system should exist for those who wish to support the business in question to pay a large amopunt of money to get special treatment for it, such as members only discussions with the writers or special raffles. Don't ever be afraid to ask for way more than it is worth, true fans would pay much, much more to support what they beleive in and be treated liek patricians.
It's good to know that peoples opinions change when it's their pocketbooks in question. I wish all leftist hippies would make similar connections when it was someone elses pocketbook.
I think TuffStuff has it just right; a hybrid paywall/free content system can work. But a Great Wall of Murdoch? No. Epic fail.
I prefer the BBC's model.
However, I hope Murdouch does wall off his content to customers, to protect us from it.
Well, the BBC isn't out to make a profit. Hence the lack of adverts.
But the BBC is not free you pay for it even if you never visit the site through UK taxes but I can read it and pay no tax and watch all there programmes on freeview in Ireland and not a shilling to the foriegn queen.
Well, to be honest, I don't intend to stay in the journalism branch. It's way too much work if you care about doing a correct job (which most journalists don't), and I didn't study my arse off for 6 years to go from one placement to another placement or get ridiculous wages (a journalist newbie is paid around 1100€ in France, if he's ever lucky enough to find a real job. A waitress working in a decent restaurant usually makes around 1300€). I'm merely sharing my opinion because I've studied the economics of journalism and the effects of the crisis, not because I want to protect my pocketbook.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I've done placements in newspapers, online ones or printed ones. Though it is a very demanding job in any case, being an online journalist nowadays is the crappiest job a well educated person can get. You work 12 hours a day and you're usually paid with stones. What's worse, in most traditional newspapers (as opposed to pure players, ie. newspapers that only exist on the web), you only get to rewrite printed articles and put them on teh intraweb. Crap job if there's one.
Then, there's the whole question of the quality of the information. Free information = low wages = people who don't care about their job or who can't do the job properly = poor information. There's a reason why most free newspapers are not even worthy to be used as toilet paper. Here goes the leftist hippie argument for you ;)
Obviously, many journalists do this job because they want to write about their ideals, educate the public, save the world or whatever. But if you want to do it correctly (which requires a lot of time) then you'd rightfully expect to make a living out of it. If I didn't, I'd just write a blog about whatever comes to my mind and link it on my facebook wall, right?
Saddly, so far, no online press has found an effective way to financially sustain itself and make signifant benefits. The "free for most customers + premium accounts" (also called freemium) isn't working either at the moment. Maybe it will improve if we get through the broader economical crisis, but at the moment, it's not very effective (though quite ahead the "everything free" model).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Things are quite dire for journalism. Everyone jumped onto the free content bandwagon, thinking advertising would be enough to pull it off. Well, advertising wasn't enough, and things got even worse with the crisis. And once the population is used to browse news websites for free, it's quite difficult to suddenly say "Hey dudes, you're going to pay for it now".
Another reason why I love my state owned and funded NRK.
I think their website has opened up for loopholes, though. I don't have a TV, so I have no obligation to pay the license; yet I get full access to all their net-TV stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
rupert murdoch is a bloody business genius. he deserves every dollar he makes. His idea was so incredibly revolutionary............ creating ba-dah-dah-dum a conservative news network i mean really what kind of competition does that have.
i however, from the other side of the political divide, will be delighted when i don't have taxpayer funded propaganda shoved down my throat courtesy of the bbc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
you cant compare the bbc as a business to any private american media company. they have to make money, the bbc is governemnt sponsored. two incredibly different models. as a result Americans get more variety (meaning: trash and trashier), brits get cheaper (is it free?) telly.
if you are left-liberal then you are well served by the BBC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
*still awaiting the release of that report on BBC bias*
BBC is pretty neutral. Unfortunately, being neutral often means liberal. It is a paradox.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
never spotted that one, try me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
The state does not fund it, YOU do.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Tell us something new... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
No, it's payed for by the (wireless) License fee, not the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
It's not free, no. You have to pay what amounts to a tax on your telly every year, of about £130.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
That said, it's great value for money. No adverts, quality news reporting, free websites, a mandate to provide for every person in Britain; broadcasting is seen as a public service, and it is the right of all Britons to be able to both expect something they will enjoy from their television, and also experience balanced journalism.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
The BBC is the king of British broadcasting. Plus I would actually say paying the money is worth it just because of the fact I don't have to change over while the adverts come on.
The BBC also uses it's money wisely; producing some of the best documentaries and educational programmes around. The other channels on the other hand are happy to produce there continuously poor soaps and talent shows. I really wish that ITV would go bust, why anyone would even think to watch it is beyond me.
Just what did you think I meant when I said "the state funds it"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
L'Etat c'est moi!
The point is you have no choice. I enjoy the BBC's educational programs but i would disagree the news is actually neutral. The one good thing about foreign news is it does alot less local and national stuff so i can see what going on in the world. It has to be an act of god for the news here to cover anything beyond the US's borders.Quote:
It's not free, no. You have to pay what amounts to a tax on your telly every year, of about £130.
That said, it's great value for money. No adverts, quality news reporting, free websites, a mandate to provide for every person in Britain; broadcasting is seen as a public service, and it is the right of all Britons to be able to both expect something they will enjoy from their television, and also experience balanced journalism.
The BBC is the world's best broadcaster by far.
Don't destroy this prized British institution, the envy of the world, over 'liberal media bias' hysteria that crossed the Atlantic via aggresive media moguls.
The BBC is actually famously conservative, in the British tradition. The British tradition of conservatism isn't so much an accepted range of thinking a la a mos maiorum, but an accepted approach to thinking and doing. Nothing very fast, but don't shy away from different things. That's why the paradigm-breaking premiership of Thatcher was very unconservative, while the decades-long campaign to end slavery was in the conservative tradition. The BBC is in the latter school. Conservative does not equal reactionary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
John Reith
The term 'Reithianism' describes certain principles of broadcasting associated with Lord Reith. These include an equal consideration of all viewpoints, probity, universality and a commitment to public service. It can be distinguished from the free-market approach to broadcasting, where programming aims to attract the largest audiences or advertising revenues, ahead of - and, in practice, often contrary to - any artistic merit, impartiality, educative or entertainment values, that a programme may have.
Reith summarized the BBC's purpose in three words: educate, inform, entertain; this remains part of the organisation's mission statement to this day.
I think the BBC has a distinctly biased "David Cameron-esque" lean to it. PC, but stodgy. Not a Tory, but clearly no Labour. Add a sprinkle of Liberal for flavouring.
that may be how it started, that is not how it is now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
show me that report into BBC bias and i'll be willing to concede the point, as long as they keep it locked up I won't.
I think that, considering the BBC gets accused by both right and left wingers of being too biasied to the other side, shows it is infact pretty neutral (by UK standards).
Indeed. It definitely isn't left-wing paradise, it gets most of its foreign policy news for instance from the government propaganda machine.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
How is it biased? Can you give some examples?Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
I do remember seeing in America some news program called "WORLD NEWS", that only had pieces about America. :laugh4:
I notice how News Corp likes to use the arguments "Ooh help us! The mighty state is crowding us out! We're helpless in the face of such mighty government muscle!" and "Come on, the state is useless. The private sector is far better at delivering what the public wants." simultaneously.Quote:
The BBC is the world's best broadcaster by far.
Don't destroy this prized British institution, the envy of the world, over 'liberal media bias' hysteria that crossed the Atlantic via aggresive media moguls.
During the Thatcher years, the Labour Party and especially Militant accused the BBC of being too Tory. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
Considering that the BBC has a natural closer fit with the Labour Party than the Conservative Party, I think the BBC does very well to treat both sides fairly (As well as the Libdems, lol)
So.... The BBC is:Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
- Biased against Israel
- Biased towards supporting the war in Iraq
- Racist towards indians
- Politically correct because they discuss whether burning holy books is comedy and if headscarfs are okay
- And a bunch of other stuff...
Just how is that "liberal bias"? How many liberals supported the war in Iraq? How many liberals would need a discussion to decide whether people can dress themselves as they please?
Not to mention that your last source is heavily biased as well, against the bbc! An internal report is internal, it's not secret.
your optimism is impressive, and irrelevant as you are not asked to pay for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
i want to see that report before i even contemplate paying for a license fee. not saying it is the sole or even principle reason why i don't have a tele, but it is certainly a nail in the coffin.
Re: "pay to read"; I remember when Slate magazine first came out as a $15 per year subscription. Eyeballs stayed away in droves. Micro$oft changed its mind and ran it for free, with adverts. Now it's quite popular. But then, we have to remember it's bankrolled by MS, which can presumably afford a loss-leader. In this day and age, I don't know how any hard copy indie newspaper makes it. Even the big chains (Gannett, Knight-Ridder, Times-Mirror) are groaning.
On television license fees: I was astonished at that Euro procedure when I learned of it. My German girlfriend pointed out the little truck that cruised neighborhoods, detecting TV receivers, sending a bill to homes that hadn't reported an extra TV in the bedroom, for example. Nowadays, I watch less than 2 hours of TV daily on average, preferring radio and internet.
Thank you Brits for the BBC; it can be a breath of fresh air in the swamp of American media. I always look forward to their World News on the radio, as I watch the sun go down from my back porch, smoking a ciggy & having an end-of-day brewski (I suppose I should drink tea than, but hey...).
Took me ages to convince the wife that I wasn't having her on when I explained the British system of TV. She was sure I was making it up to mess with her mind. And truthfully, if you've been raised in the American system, it sounds like something from Atlantis. But yeah, thanks for the BBC, they really are a resource. Like Kukri says, World News makes driving bearable.
I like the fact is not afraid to do unusual programmes I mean last night I came in from throwing some silage in the feeder to the cattle to see a programme on lambing live on BBC was a bit mistified as to the broader appeal to the british public of this but who cares it was interesting to watch
You point the issue pretty well. News networks owned by other companies can afford to lose money. And news networks owned by other companies aren't usually ranking high in the "free and independant press" department (I like Slate, but it certainly isn't top notch journalism, rather a blog for somewhat well known liberals).Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
The question was raised in France, where the printed press is usually extremely weak (it receives 2 billions of euros each year from the governement, to ensure it doesn't completely disappear). Instead of trying to think about a working economical model, most online news networks whined and bitched until the government agreed to give them money too. Ridiculous. French press is doomed.
Uhm..... Do you even know what internal reports are, and what they are for?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
If people want to know whether the BBC's coverage of something is biased or not, why not get an independant study to find that out? Why do you have to get your hands on a tool no respectable organization will ever let an outsider see?
@Lemur: The reason we do it this way instead of just financing it over the national budget, is that the funding will be stable and it won't rely on the goodwill of the politicians in control, a rather important point for a broadcaster, as they have absolutely no fear that smearing those in power will result in less funding.
The big downside is, of course, that it's not progressive.
You judge the BBC by the position it takes on one issue?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
i don't care, if they want me to pay a license fee, then they can explain their apparent bias.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Sucks to be you then, seeing as you don't have much influence but is still required to pay the license....Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
EDIT: but you do realize that forcing the BBC to release internal documents will reduce debate within the BBC? People will word themselves differently and more carefully the larger the audience is... So, if there actually is an anti-Israeli bias in the BBC, forcing them to hold the debate on whether they have a bias or not in public as opposed to internally will actually reduce the likelihood of them correcting said bias.
So in other words, you forcing them to release that report will give you a BBC even less to your liking. Enjoy the fruits of your labour.
"not saying it is the sole or even principle reason why i don't have a tele, but it is certainly a nail in the coffin."
;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
i'm not, and i don't. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
It's the decisive factor for you, and the only one you mention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
"i don't care, if they want me to pay a license fee, then they can explain their apparent bias. "
Despite its reputation around the world of being the least biased of all news organisations, you judge against it because it deems itself to be less than perfect. Tell me, where do you get your news from?
More importantly, the very fact that there is internal debate makes the BBC progressive, even if it remains conservative. The British conservative tradition has always had a touch of progressivism, never fearing to analyse itself and adjust if necessary (see Wellington for an example of an arch-conservative who accepted change). The opposite of this can probably be most closely described as reactionism. Procedurally, this takes the form of rejecting self-analysis, or not even seeing the need to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
BBC has anti-Muslim bias
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...n-network.html
No! The BBC has anti-Sikh bias
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/...100235284.html
The BBC has anti-Catholic bias
http://www.zenit.org/article-28330?l=english
The BBC has biased reporting in Iran
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00j6lfk
The BBC has anti-Israel bias
http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/ar.../00000268.html
Research shows that the BBC has a pro-Israel bias
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=9307
Maybe its the Anti-Palestines bias then
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/BBC+ex...as-a0192659707
The BBC has pro-Europe bias
http://www.globalbritain.org/BBC.asp
The BBC has a pro-Oxbridge bias
http://www.newstatesman.com/educatio...dge-university
The BBC has a pro-Eco bias
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/me...n-bbc-eco-bias
The BBC has anti-English bias
http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/BBC...ish.4306245.jp
Thee BBC has pro-Microsoft bias
http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/...oft-pro-1.html
The BBC has pro-West End Musicals bias, says Kevin Spacey
http://www.israellycool.com/2008/03/...s-bbc-of-bias/
I'm so bored with BBC bias conspiracy: http://dizzythinks.net/2009/09/im-so...onspiracy.html
Epic, Louis, just epic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
http://images.tmuscle.com/forum_imag...883a7-clap.gif
I love that post, and I love Orson Welles. Here's a better res version: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3287/...f47bd486_o.gif
no it isn't, i specifically said so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
doing an open all tabs on my news (not inc blogs) subfolder in firefox we get:
http://www.atimes.com/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
http://www.reuters.com/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
http://www.theatlantic.com/
http://www.time.com/time/
http://www.economist.com/index.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/
http://www.medialens.org/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/
http://www.ft.com/home/europe
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
http://www.nrc.nl/international/
http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/english/
http://www.icenews.is/
http://europe.wsj.com/home-page
http://www.independent.ie/ (thanks Gaelic Cowboy)
So many people bandy about the the term 'bias' as if just to say the word explained fully why a particular source critically appraises something they don't want critically appraised.
If I investigate Israeli military atrocities I am not 'biased'. If I report on the successful private healthcare system of x country I am not 'biased'.
Selection of what to cover may well reflect a bias toward a particular type of story or issue. And if I then selectively present evidence from what I see, that would also reflect a bias. But just saying x source is biased is inane and dull, and is what one would expect from 12 year olds on their first outing on a message board and have once heard a big boy use a word they didn't fully understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
You are so cliché.
This is the reaction I get every time I read something that comes from the marketing department....Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
except the part about the message board...
This thread, somewhat by accident, does stumble on an interesting dynamic at work atm. Murdoch charging for his sites, all at the same time that the BBC is coming under pressure from the Tories to scale back their online content and give some of their money away to media businesses. Now that wouldn't have any connection with the up-coming election would it? I mean who would be so cynical as to curry favour with the owner of half the country's news outlets in the run up to an election?
It's just the latest chapter in the epic struggle between Rupert Murdoch and Liberty.
While we're talking about BBC and the web...are those commercials prior to the videos only for foreigners? Because I happen to be sick of South Africa and its journeys; in fact I'll never ever travel to South Africa. :furious3:
Yes, bbc website content outside of the UK is provided by BBC worldwide, the commercial branch of the BBC. That's why you get ads on the bbc site when accessing it from outside the UK.Quote:
are those commercials prior to the videos only for foreigners?
I take it they're advertising South Africa then... heh. *goes back to ad free bbc browsing*