Apologies for typos in my previous post at #210699 :

* 'journalisms' should have been 'journalism'

'it' should be omitted from "One way it could be done (...) it is to have a pool ..".

* 'once-prospweous' should have been 'once-prosperous'

----

spindoc asks at #210704 "what was the question"?

The question was how to make journalism a viable business given that there are no easy means to collect revenue to fairly pay those who provide Internet content.

I proposed one way. Now, how about explaining why you think it would not work?

----

Also, spindoc, would you tell us if you think any journalist should be paid a cent for writing lies that have caused so much harm, only a few examples of which I have given above?

Newspapers are dead, news on the internet is easy to find, in small bites, if you want more, you find it.

I don't see the big scandal hunting or other writing where journalists used to roam, admittedly.

People of a particular bent will still go to the sites of their politics and lambast anyone different.

The more insecure types keep to sites so they don't even hear of certain things going on in the world, like the horse-sex aboriginal lambasting the other aboriginal for being offensive. Which was news and interesting, but kept from sensitive ears by Fairfax and the ABC, who know what's best for their audience.

Hazza refers to organizations who employ "catchy 'shock jock' type authors" and I agree, at the ABC they have Mariak Hardy and that awful woman who insulted Bindy, can't remember her name, and others, on their payroll for exactly that reason, sensation and titillation.

Would people pay for this sort of content?

Will people pay for newspaper subscriptions to read online? (aside from journalists)

I suspect not if they get the overwhelming advertising as well.

At times I just want to read in a specific genre, NatGeo, SciAm, PopMech or Total911 magazines, so I subscribe to the digital version and read on a PC or other electronic medium.

I like the advertising in some of my journals, it's in keeping though with the subject. Newspaper ads are shotgun, and it's rare I ever was interested.

Like buggy whip manufacturers, who produced a fine product, it's no longer something people want.

The customers have moved on, and the market decides, the journalists are like dinosaurs now, from a bygone age.

It seems to be the trend recently from people who cannot accept that others might think differently, to blame them and agents provocateur for their woes, instead of accepting change has happened.

You see this in politics, climate change, other areas, the denial of change and acceptance that it happens. We all need to adapt.

mudge, I can’t believe you said that, well, if I take into account that you were a “financial journalist”, not only can I not believe it but I just can’t believe it!

Since this is probably the first time I’ve ever disagreed with you, I’m going to preface this with, “perhaps I misunderstood your comments”.

What I understood Brian to say, and supported by you (perhaps), it that the “market is fragmenting”.

So might I ask whose market this is? Why it was allowed to fragment? What has been done about it? Who is responsible for action/inaction? Why did your marketing department not spot this? Why new “channels to market” were not identified? Why new technologies as “market access” were not identified? Why new products and services based on new technologies were not identified? Why your industry cannot articulate the difference between a client (investor/advertiser) and a customer (buyer of the product)? Why the socio-economic variables that drive your industry were not understood and mitigated? Why does your industry still not understand what “compliance with customer needs” means? Why cannot your industry identify the “trend lines” that determine where it is heading? Why cannot your industry understand the relationship between SROI, (Shareholder Return on Investment) and customer compliant product/service/price drivers? Why is your industry incapable of understanding “competitive analysis”? Why is your industry incapable of understanding the difference between quantity/accessibility and quality?

And finally, the SPERE factors. Why is your industry totally incapable of understanding the destruction that socio-political contamination is doing to destroy media credibility and its markets?

Like I said, this is an industry that does not have the faintest idea of or who or what it is. It is doomed and deservedly so. It has reached rock bottom and started digging because it is run by the “employees”.

Unless of course you can tell me differently?

malthusista, your comments noted. Perhaps you would like to begin here? You said “tell us” I just did. Over to you.

The same thing is happening to newspapers that happened to television: they are losing their brighter readers to the Internet, and as a result they feel they have to dumb down and become populist to try and maintain their circulation. This drives more bright readers away, and the cycle continues.

The Herald is now largely composed of press releases relating to 'youth culture' and scare stories on global warming. It's clearly trying to grab the attention of Generation Y, but without success. The Murdoch Sydney and Melbourne papers have always aimed at a less well-educated demographic, so they are not feeling quite the same effects yet, but they will. The Australian at least has a captive market in Canberra.

But so what? New technology provides new opportunities. I bet the town criers felt pretty lousy when they were sacked after the penny post came in, but who misses them now?

Thanks, spindoc (&page=3#210748).

---

My research today has found one way that would enable users of Internet services (including journalism) to pay more easily for the services: micro-payments.

An intermediary (e.g. http://flattr.com) records the micropayment that each of its customers wishes to make each time he/she clicks on a Flattr button on a page for which he/she wishes to make a micro-payment for.

At the end of each month an amount, say $10, within that customer's account is split up in proportion to the number of click makes on the Flattr buttons on the web pages of each each content provider. The intermediary then deducts its 10% commission from each micropayment, aggregates, agreggates the micropayments less its commissions, then pays the aggregated micropayments to each content provider.

This would have to be a far better way for customers to pay for services than the pay walls that News Limited is erecting. I can't see how it could fail.

I doubt very much if more than a small minority of Internet users, when faced with a choice on the one hand, of the disinformation behind News Limited paywalls (examples of which I have given above at &page=1#210699) and truthful journalism available elsewhere, for which they need only make micropayments should they think the material of any merit, would choose the former.

Even on a more level-playing field, were News Limited to make micropayment facilities available on its web-sites, I doubt if they would receive sufficient income to maintain their business.

Whilst I think http://flattr.com's micropayment system is still considerably short of perfect, it obviously leaves for dead the News Limited paywalls.

It can be noted that at a funeral the crowd can be divided in two groups; the ones who are there to mourn the dead and the ones who are there to make sure that the dead is well dead.

At the funeral of the newspaper you’ll find me there, in the second group.

I instead love the ABC. I love it…to its death.