Comments on: The Future of Newspapers http://joshkaner.com/2009/03/09/the-future-of-newspapers/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-future-of-newspapers More. Better. Thu, 28 Jul 2011 07:32:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Jared S http://joshkaner.com/2009/03/09/the-future-of-newspapers/comment-page-1/#comment-4 Jared S Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:23:06 +0000 http://joshkaner.com/?p=65#comment-4 While I don't agree that Carr's central point is to charge for content, I do agree that this is not a significant part of the answer. Even WSJ doesn't make lots of money from their pay content - their core still comes from their subscriptions and the print ad revenue that goes along with it. Sure, that print revenue i as Josh suggests, experiment and innovate. Simply adding a paywall won't work - it didn't work even when the consumers could afford the content. I think Carr's central point is to bring deliberate collusion to the realm of journalism. As ridiculous as this sounds, I think I agree with him. Why does NY have the Post and the Daily News? Neither is making money. But I suggest that this collusion include broadcast journalism as well. There are too many 24-hour news channels, too many print newspapers and too many news based blogs. We can't (and shouldn't) regulate the blogs. But professional journalism needs to return to its roots of professionalism. And if that means less professional journalists, so be it. The bloggers can break the stories and the journalists can do what they do best - the full court press of accurate (and fact-checked [yes, they need to do ths]) information to support the big stories. While I don’t agree that Carr’s central point is to charge for content, I do agree that this is not a significant part of the answer. Even WSJ doesn’t make lots of money from their pay content – their core still comes from their subscriptions and the print ad revenue that goes along with it. Sure, that print revenue i as Josh suggests, experiment and innovate. Simply adding a paywall won’t work – it didn’t work even when the consumers could afford the content.

I think Carr’s central point is to bring deliberate collusion to the realm of journalism. As ridiculous as this sounds, I think I agree with him. Why does NY have the Post and the Daily News? Neither is making money.

But I suggest that this collusion include broadcast journalism as well. There are too many 24-hour news channels, too many print newspapers and too many news based blogs. We can’t (and shouldn’t) regulate the blogs. But professional journalism needs to return to its roots of professionalism. And if that means less professional journalists, so be it. The bloggers can break the stories and the journalists can do what they do best – the full court press of accurate (and fact-checked [yes, they need to do ths]) information to support the big stories.

]]>