(Continued from Above)

One way it could be done (most surely proscribed by the free market ideologue 'journalists' of the Murdoch media) it is to have a pool of money set up by governments raised through general revenue.

That money could be distributed to providers of any online material based upon how much the story is read. Whilst journalists, who are more popular should receive more, the scale of payments would have to be non-linear to ensure that there is still enough to pay those starting out or who serve smaller niche readerships. If a story is more popular the writer should receive more, but there is no need for the a writer of an article read by say, 1 milion readers to be paid 100 times what is paid to an author of a piece read by 10,000 people.

How to measure the popularity of a piece could be worked out and adapted over time. The measure would be a combination of, amongst other factors which it may be possible to quantify, hits and size of the piece. Over short periods of time there would be no guarantee that such a system would hold inaccuracies or that it could not be be abused, but over longer periods of time those innaccuracies would be evened out and attempts to systematically abuse it would most likely be detected.

malthusista, some great economic solutions there. Just one small and seemingly irrelevant point, what was the question?

Perhaps you need to start you own publication. As a potential investor I would give you about a week, but sadly, not a cent.

What Pericles said;
Newspapers only have potential for deeper expert analysis- but because they've employed catchy 'shock jock' type authors- most of which clearly actually ignorant about the issues they are trying to whip up hysteria over- that element doesn't fly either.

I might add that ever since the internet has drawn away news readers, the papers have been capitalizing more than ever on the mug readers who want entertainment and shock stories more than real news (read, people who aren't smart enough to figure out how to use the internet for getting news)- ensuring even MORE people are alienated from the papers and forced to get their news elsewhere.

To say it again- "digging their own grave"

The only way back is an intelligent newspaper full of information- not celebrity gossip and bogan scandal stories.

The Telegraph is the rock-bottom example of the final stage of this bogan capitalization- in fact, the only reason it sells is because it is printed on an A3 format book- rather than a gigantic map.

The Australian seems to only market to insecure 'right wing fanclub' types that need to be reassured that their moronic opinions correspond to any popular outlet.

The Telegraph is probably the paper resisting most of this downward trend, though if its not careful in staying away it will be history too.

As a print media journalist (albeit in finance rather than general) I can say that Brian is spot on and most of the posters have the issue backwards.

He is saying that the news media's once very large ad revenues are fading away and the money that once subsidised news gathering is no longer there. Quite so, the market is fragmenting.

Previously newspapers had a model similar to free to air TV - bitey please note - where the ads paid for the bulk of production and the subscription virtually nothing, and mostly they had a near monopoly in major markets.

Now the classifieds and readers are going online and newspapers are scrambling to broaden their markets.. and find ways to make their online sites pay enough to make up for the revenues they have.
They have been trying every formulae under the sun and there have been successes in specialist areas, but mostly the magic combination has yet to be found..

Posters are also saying if newspapers are better then that would solve the problem. Although they are reacting to newspapers are they are now, trying to reach a larger audience, rather than as they were, I'm sure newspapers could be better.

The trouble is it wouldn't solve the problem. Almost every combination has been tried both in Aus and especially in the US.. people just won't pay for quality or investigative journalism, and it doesn't really matter how you define investigative or quality.

I stopped buying newspapers years ago. If I read them now at a coffee shop it is for the culture and book review sections. Most so-called journalists are embedded bludgers who would'nt know a story if they fell over one. For example the latest expose of Tony Abbott and the carbon tax saga. Fox "Limited news " is pure propaganda mixed with third rate fiction and a large helping of fantasy about the real political geography of the modern world. The endless liftouts on boring male sport, other boring male obsessions like cars and ads for white goods merchants for the little lady are just so unsustainable. The world's forests are dying for this rubbish? As for these endless eulogies on the print industry, get over it. Adapt. Retrain. And when I was growing up we listened to the radio and read books. The world will probably be a better place without these daily doses of gloom and doom and males endlessly rabbiting on with yet more opinions. Do any of you actually have real work to do?

"If we won't pay, the future is one of poorly researched, unreliable news of uncertain origin." But that's what we're getting now. There's no doubt readership is falling but its also due to younger age cohorts dismissing newspapers as base, boring trivia.

I love newspapers but I fear for their future.