Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Will Star In New Dow Jones News Model

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the free-will-find-a-way dept.

The Media 95

An anonymous reader writes "Dow Jones is getting set to launch a new aggregator, akin to Google News, which will charge Web users for access to high-quality journalism. 'The Journal is one of the many newspapers you might buy in one place and with one payment [...] Watch for it,' said Dow Jones CEO Les Hinton. However, rather than posing a threat to Google News, Andrew Keen, author and entrepreneur, says the aggregator will use Google as a critical partner. The only people who should be worried about this new model, says Keen, 'are all those lucky consumers who, over the last 15 years, have been getting their news for free.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

first (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28599739)

first

First Post! (0, Offtopic)

Kruncher (749152) | more than 5 years ago | (#28599741)

First Post! I like to get my news for free...

Quick! (2, Funny)

pHus10n (1443071) | more than 5 years ago | (#28599751)

Someone tell MSNBC, CNN, and Foxnews they're no longer viable.

Re:Quick! (2, Funny)

Reason58 (775044) | more than 5 years ago | (#28599781)

I've been saying this for years.

Re:Quick! (2, Informative)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 5 years ago | (#28600309)

They said high quality. That completely eliminates Fox, and throws grave doubts on the other two.

Re:Quick! (1)

Bodhammer (559311) | more than 5 years ago | (#28600711)

Well the article did say "high quality" so I'm not sure this applies to them...

Re:Quick! (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28609415)

He said high-quality journalism. I'm not sure if you're lumping MSN(BC) and Fox in with the high quality stuff, or if you're joking that they're going to be excluded from the new system.

Personally I'd just like to SEE some truly high quality journalism these days. Woodward & Bernstein should've started a school which banned press releases and PR or something.

Sounds friendly... (5, Funny)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 5 years ago | (#28599773)

Hey, all you people getting value for free, you'd better watch out! You have to pay us now... for what you already get for free! Take that!

This guy must have been top of his class in Business School. I will follow his career with much interest.

Re:Sounds friendly... (4, Interesting)

bheer (633842) | more than 5 years ago | (#28599919)

I find this extremely ironic because today a columnist from _Reuters_ broke the big news story about the Goldman Sachs arrest. And Reuters has a very informative web site. While NY and Chicago papers (who should have broken the story because it happened in their cities) were snoozing.

Controlling the aggregator won't making papers profitable. Delivering a service people _want to pay for_ (like Flickr, or WSJ, or the Economist) will make them profitable. And so far, local papers (even in bigger cities like Boston) are just not doing that.

Re:Sounds friendly... (2, Funny)

aengblom (123492) | more than 5 years ago | (#28600023)

I find this extremely ironic because today a columnist from _Reuters_ broke the big news story about the Goldman Sachs arrest. And Reuters has a very informative web site. While NY and Chicago papers (who should have broken the story because it happened in their cities) were snoozing.

Controlling the aggregator won't making papers profitable. Delivering a service people _want to pay for_ (like Flickr, or WSJ, or the Economist) will make them profitable. And so far, local papers (even in bigger cities like Boston) are just not doing that.

.... Reuters has several thousand journalists. Why would they not break major stories?

Re:Sounds friendly... (4, Informative)

zonky (1153039) | more than 5 years ago | (#28600153)

Because news collection just doesn't work like this at all.

This book [amazon.co.uk] is well worth a read on how news is collected, and becomes news. It's quite depressing reading.

Re:Sounds friendly... (1)

Kirth Gersen (603793) | more than 5 years ago | (#28605543)

The book (Flat Earth News) linked to by the parent is indeed worth reading. It argues that media owners have tried to drive down costs by eliminating actual journalism, and that they have been largely successful in driving more principled competitors out of business.

I think it is too late to reverse this trend.

We will wind up with "news" sites which simply make available press releases. This is essentially what almost every media outlet is doing now, except that it also reproduces AP and Reuters. AP and Reuters, and France-Presse, and all the others, will vanish as their revenue stream dries up (assuming it doesn't come mostly from intelligence agencies).

The only "value add" which such news sites can offer is selecting interesting press releases and indexing them, which Google News can do now.

Of course, with today's perspective we might wonder exactly how much real journalism was *ever* done.

Re:Sounds friendly... (1)

bheer (633842) | more than 5 years ago | (#28605703)

> Reuters has several thousand journalists.

Of course. But Reuters core businesses are news syndication, foreign reporting (which it can do because of the economies of scale generated by news syndication) and financial data (which probably contributes more to the bottom line than news syndication).

The Goldman Sachs case was just the sort of thing the "city" papers claim they're set up for - investigative journalism, asking the hard questions, yada yada. Except it didn't happen. Why didn't the (NY) Times ask the hard questions when NYSE stopped reporting GS trades? A blog (ZeroHedge) actually covered that way better than the Times.

Sure, maybe I'm being too hard on them by picking this particular case. But these days, the "scoop" often doesn't come from newspapers anymore.

These days I read the Times for the arts/books and feature sections. News, not so much. The problem with that is that arts and features isn't enough of a market for several newspapers to thrive. In 10 years we'll see what happens in every other struggling business -- consolidation. There'll probably be a handful of major regional newspapers left in America, all based around major population centres. Everything else will move to the web.

Re:Sounds friendly... (1)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 5 years ago | (#28602119)

While I agree with you, if you want to argue about locality, Thomson Reuter's headquarters are located right here in Times Square, and the company itself is broken up all over.

Re:Sounds friendly... (1)

daryl_and_daryl (1005065) | more than 5 years ago | (#28602363)

Don't worry about Boston, it's not a big college town.

Re:Sounds friendly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28608079)

protip: you can underline things by using the <u> and </u> HTML tags.

Re:Sounds friendly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28606551)

What an idiot, the music industry has raped the public by overcharging for recorded materials for years and now they cry! The thing that makes me smile is MP3's will never go away and file sharing and music recording can never be stopped no matter how hard they try. They know it!

To be fair to the WSJ (3, Interesting)

Greg_D (138979) | more than 5 years ago | (#28599783)

They not only started charging for their content, but stuck with it long after other companies had moved to horifically low paying internet ads. The result is that people who subscribe to the WSJ online expect to pay for content, whereas people who use other news sites expect to get their news for free.

Re:To be fair to the WSJ (3, Insightful)

hansoloaf (668609) | more than 5 years ago | (#28599827)

I think you need to consider the audience that the WJS sells to. Business people do not mind paying for business-oriented content. Look at The Economist, FT, etc for examples along with WSJ.

Meanwhile for general news, NY Times tried the walled garden and it failed.

Re:To be fair to the WSJ (1)

ooutland (146624) | more than 5 years ago | (#28600001)

Maybe more to the point, business people do not mind *their businesses/employers* paying for content, or, for the self-employed, deducting it as a business expense. So in the end, it is still free to the end user.

Re:To be fair to the WSJ (4, Informative)

geekgirlandrea (1148779) | more than 5 years ago | (#28600297)

Deducting it as a business expense is only free to a self-employed end user if said user is paying a 100% marginal tax rate. This is unlikely to be the case.

Re:To be fair to the WSJ (2, Informative)

daryl_and_daryl (1005065) | more than 5 years ago | (#28602405)

are you married too ?

Re:To be fair to the WSJ (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28609465)

Business people do not mind paying for business-oriented content.

Nor to stock traders mind paying a little for tips on the markets that could double their money. That's a bit different from hearing what the latest insult between the USA and Iran is.

logic? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#28599805)

So lets see here.

Out of a ton of news aggregators, one is going to charge money for it? Clearly slashdot must feel threatened too.

Re:logic? (2, Insightful)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 5 years ago | (#28601675)

Wait I didn't realize slashdot was primarily news, the articles are just fluff. The comments are always a better read if you want to read a story.

Re:logic? (1)

dna_(c)(tm)(r) (618003) | more than 5 years ago | (#28604661)

Wait I didn't realize slashdot was primarily news, the articles are just fluff. The comments are always a better read if you want to read a story.

Pay attention, it's at the top of each page: Slashdot. News for Herds. Comments that Matter. Or something. Can't be bothered to scroll up to read it.

Re:logic? (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28609519)

Out of a ton of news aggregators

Centralised news aggregators, even. Figuratively speaking, the personal aggregators on many peoples' desktops would amount to MORE than a "ton".

Why should I pay when there are alternatives? (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 5 years ago | (#28599811)

The WSJ must provide some compelling, unique content otherwise this will just become another irrelevant website, with only a few viewers and even less revenue.

Re:Why should I pay when there are alternatives? (4, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#28600323)

The WSJ does provide compelling, unique content. Maybe not for you, but for a lot of people. In the print world, they're the #2 newspaper. (Number 1 is USA Today, largely due to hotel deals)

Re:Why should I pay when there are alternatives? (1)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 5 years ago | (#28602135)

Not only do they manage to be an excellent news outlet, they are also the word on business and financial matters (along with The Economist and Financial Times).

Having subscribed to WSJ for a year or so, it was definitely worth having. Their forums are also very, very informative.

ok then (1)

eclectro (227083) | more than 5 years ago | (#28599821)

The only people who should be worried about this new model, says Keen, 'are all those lucky consumers who, over the last 15 years, have been getting their news for free.

I guess I will have to go back and get my news from the television for free. Oh well.

Welcome to the 21st century. (2, Funny)

seekret (1552571) | more than 5 years ago | (#28599823)

It's about time something like this happened. I am sick of hearing all the talk from newspapers about how evil the Internet is because they can't sell papers anymore, now maybe that they have finally decided to use a payment method for online news they will shut up. Will I actually pay for any of it? Probably not, I don't care that much about the type of news that is always reported in physical papers and there are plenty resources for science and tech news around that are not as concerned with the bottom line as the Dow Jones.

WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28599829)

The only people who should be worried about this new model, says Keen, 'are all those lucky consumers who, over the last 15 years, have been getting their news for free.'"

So, everyone?

Good pitch (4, Insightful)

njfuzzy (734116) | more than 5 years ago | (#28599847)

Great marketing-- The only people who lose out are the consumers! That'll show the bastards!

I have an idea (4, Funny)

Palestrina (715471) | more than 5 years ago | (#28599867)

Maybe the public should start charging for making the news? Those damn newsies having been leeching off the deeds and misdeeds of the ordinary public from the beginning. Why should they get our stories for free? If it wasn't for us, the news would just be bad fiction printed on cheap paper. We should go on strike. No one do anything newsworthy for a week. That'll teach 'em!

Re:I have an idea (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28599995)

If it wasn't for us, the news would just be bad fiction printed on cheap paper.

Ah yes, that would be so very different.

Re:I have an idea (1)

cortesoft (1150075) | more than 5 years ago | (#28600177)

That's not fair! They print on very nice paper.

Re:I have an idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28603879)

That's not fair! They print on very nice paper.

Yeah I know! Got some padding my bird cage right now.

Re:I have an idea (2, Insightful)

sorak (246725) | more than 5 years ago | (#28607925)

No one do anything newsworthy for a week.

We tried that. It backfired when the networks re branded it as reality programming.

Re:I have an idea (1)

The Raven (30575) | more than 5 years ago | (#28609449)

These strikes never work out. Every time we do nothing interesting for a week, the media just chooses some random person, labels them a 'celebrity', and writes about their boring life for a week. And for some reason, people pay money to read this gossip about ordinary folk.

I like to have sex with hats! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28599877)

"My name is Dax, and I had sex with a hat! Dow Jones-a-phone, rubbin' on my bone!"

-Sir Paul McCartney, February, 2009

Dont we already have free,high quality journalism? (1)

chrysrobyn (106763) | more than 5 years ago | (#28599883)

Charging for high quality journalism? Wonder what NPR will do to the competition?

Re:Dont we already have free,high quality journali (1)

teknopurge (199509) | more than 5 years ago | (#28599941)

No, we have blogs. Blogs are not even close to journalism.


NPR is not free - it's paid for by donations. I suggest you make some less you want to lose it. [npr.org]

Re:Dont we already have free,high quality journali (1)

oneirophrenos (1500619) | more than 5 years ago | (#28600161)

NPR is not free - it's paid for by donations.

I listen to NPR often, and I ain't paid nothing for it. So, it's free.

Re:Dont we already have free,high quality journali (1)

pwfffff (1517213) | more than 5 years ago | (#28600253)

And that makes you a jerk.

(...me too)

Re:Dont we already have free,high quality journali (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28600501)

that still doesn't make it free. someone else is just paying for you.

Re:Dont we already have free,high quality journali (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28600677)

>that still doesn't make it free. someone else is just paying for you.

Someone else may be paying, but they have their own reasons.

Something can be locally free even if it uses resources. Does anything meet your definition of "free?"

Re:Dont we already have free,high quality journali (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 5 years ago | (#28601199)

I guess "TANSTAAFL" applies here.

No, there is nothing that is free of cost. It is paid for somewhere along the line.

The catch is when too many people delude themselves into thinking "oh I don't need to (pay|donate) because plenty of others will" that the number of (donors|buyers) drops under a critical level. I think it will start happening, at least for the mass internet audience who feel entitled to things for free.

Re:Dont we already have free,high quality journali (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28601837)

i'ts not entitlement, it's expectation. they brought their bandwidth to access your content and you provided yours to make it available. it is YOU who feels entitled. if you do not like just anyone accessing your site, TAKE IT DOWN.

Re:Dont we already have free,high quality journali (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28603547)

This is how Obama got elected. People who have absolutely no clue how the economy works voting.

Responding to trolls, a good pass-time (1)

Omestes (471991) | more than 5 years ago | (#28604507)


This is how Obama got elected. People who have absolutely no clue how the economy works voting.

This would obviously have to be true for every American president in recent history then, right? What did either Bush do for our economy? Clinton managed to turn a deficit into a surplus, but it can be argued that his antagonism against blue collar American workers helped our current problems. Then we add the fact that there is much more to life than mere economics, and the fact that no one really understands how the economy actually works (last I checked there wasn't any consensus on this).

And some people voted for Obama because McCain would just be more "supply side" bull, which even though it is pretty much proven to be a pile of crap, Goldwater republicans somehow think that if they push it enough it will magically become viable, even if it never has been. Sadly Obama isn't much better, since he also follows the whole "make the uber rich (top 3%) happy, screw any actual creation of wealth" model, just like Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush.

Re:Dont we already have free,high quality journali (1)

dna_(c)(tm)(r) (618003) | more than 5 years ago | (#28604791)

This is how Obama got elected. People who have absolutely no clue how the economy works voting.

On the plus side, apparently a large proportion of the population understood how an improvement on foreign relations could be achieved. Even if Palin had and could see Russia (oh, man, one of the best jokes ever)

But seriously, Bush understood how the economy works? How did we end up in this mess then?

high-quality journalism (4, Funny)

harmonise (1484057) | more than 5 years ago | (#28599889)

which will charge Web users for access to high-quality journalism.

Does high-quality journalism even exist anymore?

Re:high-quality journalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28600755)

high-quality journalism == oxymoron

Re:high-quality journalism (1)

FireFly9 (1504637) | more than 5 years ago | (#28602669)

It's very rare and hard to find! So much journalism today is to the left or to the right, they like to put there own spin on the news!! Therefore its not "high-quality" journalism. News is suppose to be free, NEVER EVER paid for!!! But in the meantime, Andrew Keen, "futue te ipsum" that's Latin for - You go fuck yourself!!!!!!!

as Hunter S Thompson said... (1)

RMH101 (636144) | more than 5 years ago | (#28605119)

"The press is a gang of cruel faggots. Journalism is not a profession or a trade. It is a cheap catch-all for fuckoffs and misfits... a false doorway to the backside of life, a filthy piss-ridden little hole nailed off by the building inspector, but just deep enough for a wino to curl up from the sidewalk and masturbate like a chimp in a zoo-cage."

So let me get this straight... (4, Insightful)

Itchyeyes (908311) | more than 5 years ago | (#28599925)

Hinton is saying that the only people who shouldn't be happy with his new business plan are the very people he needs to voluntarily pay for his service? Somebody didn't think this through.

Re:So let me get this straight... (1)

YourExperiment (1081089) | more than 5 years ago | (#28608541)

Yes, do feel free to get this straight. You're attributing the quote to the wrong person. It's author and entrepreneur Andrew Keen who's stating that the consumers should be worried, not Dow Jones CEO Les Hinton.

I'm not sure how your post got modded +5 Insightful. I know it's traditional around here not to read the article, but you'd think people would at least read the summary.

Re:So let me get this straight... (1)

Itchyeyes (908311) | more than 5 years ago | (#28608747)

I did read the summary. I merely looked at the wrong name while I was typing my comment (god forbid somebody make a mistake posting on an internet forum). And I was immediately aware of the mistake after I hit the submit button. Unfortunately /. does not allow editing of comments, so it will forever remain there waiting for self important people to come along and nit pick the one minor detail.

Re:So let me get this straight... (1)

YourExperiment (1081089) | more than 5 years ago | (#28608895)

In that case, my apologies for pointing out your mistake, a mistake which completely invalidates the point you were trying to make, and which you couldn't be bothered to correct for yourself even after you spotted it straight away. I guess my rampant self-importance got the better of me.

He's going to pay Google right? (1)

Pearson (953531) | more than 5 years ago | (#28599965)

"So Google -- which has never been in the content business -- will become the all-important vehicle that will deliver the punters to the Dow Jones walled garden of news."

So if I understand this correctly, after railing about how Google was leeching off of others without paying a dime, Hinton is now going to use Google for his own profit without paying Google a dime...

Re:He's going to pay Google right? (1)

dna_(c)(tm)(r) (618003) | more than 5 years ago | (#28604815)

So if I understand this correctly, after railing about how Google was leeching off of others without paying a dime, Hinton is now going to use Google for his own profit without paying Google a dime...

Yeah, it's payback time! Kind of.

oh WSJ.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28599969)

If they don't like it why not just slip a simple little robots.txt file in there and disable google's indexing? Or block everyone with a google.com as their http referrer?

I wonder how much traffic they would get then...

Really... (5, Insightful)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | more than 5 years ago | (#28599973)

...which will charge Web users for access to high-quality journalism.

So... they'll do quality fact checking back to prime sources, not Wikipedia?
And... they'll report conflicts of interest not only among their subjects but with their corporate overlord?
And... they'll report which moneyed interests stand to gain, every time?
And... they'll never ever ever accept paid publicity or promotional materials and report them as news?
And... they'll stop reporting what Britney Spears is doing?
And... they'll never invent another word like Brangelina again?
And... they'll carefully write political copy using neutral, non-loaded words and phrases, without bias?

Color me skeptical...

I would laugh, but it's too farkin' pathetic. "High-quality". Right...

Re:Really... (4, Interesting)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 5 years ago | (#28600053)

Your knee-jerk cynicism changes nothing. As bad as the press is, a world without them would be even worse. Instead of celebrity-driven news like CNN, you'd have Stan the Basement Blogger picking apart a press release from Apple ad nauseum. And there is no guarantee of bloggers' neutrality, either. Good journalism costs money-yet doing good journalism doesn't often make money, and often can hinder an organization's ability to make money. The US needs a BBC.

Re:Really... (2, Insightful)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | more than 5 years ago | (#28600273)

It wasn't knee-jerk cynicism. It was carefully considered, well-informed, long-nurtured cynicism.

Other than that, you're right.

Re:Really... (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 5 years ago | (#28601927)

The US needs a BBC.

It would never work. No one would understand the foreign accents.

Re:Really... (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 5 years ago | (#28604321)

you'd have Stan the Basement Blogger picking apart a press release from Apple ad nauseum.

But Dr Evil, that has already happened.

Re:Really... (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 5 years ago | (#28600787)

Yeah. Because none of those have ever been a problem with other news sources, be they free or community, or blogger, or otherwise? I mean, just look at WP...

Targeting finance consumers? (2, Funny)

stefanlasiewski (63134) | more than 5 years ago | (#28599991)

I don't think Dow Jones is targeting the average consumer, but are targeting higher-end financial consumers, investors, financial advisers, etc. Maybe they are mostly "old" people ;)

In the financial world, there are still plenty of vendors who charge for their content-- Barron's, financial newsletters, Bloomberg's "Professional" news products, etc.

Overall, these vendors generally (But not always) provide good-quality, in-depth articles and opinions. People will read their copy of Barron's like a student reads a book, complete with bookmarks and highlighters.

While the free sites are cheap, many of the news sites are filled with noise, the forums are filled with scams (The comments at finance.google.com are entertaining to read).

   

The Missing Link (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#28600049)

Dow Jones is getting set to launch a new aggregator, akin to Google News, which will charge Web users for access to high-quality journalism.

Great idea.

The only problem is a complete lack of high quality journalism today.

Since they plan to aggregate instead of provide something new, the idea is dead before it began.

Anyone wants to start a bet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28600169)

Anyone wants to start a bet on how long this "venture" will last ....few weeks / months/ years /?

I'm betting on 6 months!

Did anyone else... (1)

bitfarmer (219431) | more than 5 years ago | (#28600221)

...read the first two words of this article as "George Will"? I gotta stop watching ABC News so much.

Re:Did anyone else... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28600691)

Nope, just you.

great idea ~ (1)

nausea_malvarma (1544887) | more than 5 years ago | (#28600269)

Customers will love paying for what they already get for free, because people love throwing money away, amirite?

Google news is beta/noncommercial (no ads) (1)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28600343)

One of the things that's helped Google get away with aggregating other people's contents on their news service is the fact that Google News is non-commercial, doesn't run ads, and doesn't represent a revenue stream for Google. And they still got sued several times. If Dow Jones wants to do something similar, but charge for it, they may find themselves facing a whole stream of lawsuits, and may find that their defense is a lot less effective.

informative do7)ldoll (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28600425)

We aren't getting it for free. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28600467)

Except consumers don't get the news for free. We have to pay for our Internet connection (excluding those who steal it from their neighbors, wifi cafes are semi-free but you pay for it with the food you buy from them).

We also get bombarded with all those advertisements as well.

Stop crying newspapers. It works just like cable TV has for so many years.

Yes, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28600495)

Yes, but will they use slashcode?

Very Interesting ... (1)

I'm_Original (1152583) | more than 5 years ago | (#28600565)

" ... are all those lucky consumers who, over the last 15 years, have been getting their news for free."

I find your ideas intriguing, and would like to subscribe to your ... wait, how much?

Forget it.

Sorry, there's no going back now (2, Funny)

mstroeck (411799) | more than 5 years ago | (#28600609)

News will now remain free. If the major providers put their shit behind pay-walls, one of two things will happen:

1) There's already a thriving eco-system of ad-financed blogs and other sites that basically do nothing but sift through, reword and extensively "quote" the stuff behind the login-prompts. These sites will just get bigger and stronger, eventually hiring more of their own staff. Since that's 90% of what traditional newspapers have been doing since the dawn of time, there is more than enough precedent for this business model.

2) If the going get's really tough, Wikinews or some other major non-profit payer will become as hugely popular as Wikipedia is now. If Britannica or Brockhaus had made all their content available for free under a reasonably license for personal use, Wikipedia would probably not be where it is now.

Re:Sorry, there's no going back now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28603775)

Honestly, i doubt Britannica has the scope of Wikipedia. Since neither are suitable as sources for serious writing, Wikipedia still wins hands down, even if Britannica were free.

Factiva (1)

RevWaldo (1186281) | more than 5 years ago | (#28600751)

Dow Jones has been running a news search and database service called Factiva ( http://www.factiva.com/ [factiva.com] ) since 1999. It is primarily used in business (although they do take credit cards) and is a serious news database - thousands of news sources fed directly to it, taxonomies, APIs, the works. Head to head it kicks Google News' ass. If Dow Jones is developing a consumer version it could have a number of advantages over Google News that users may be willing to shell out for.

Sounds liike it's just a bigger walled garden (2, Funny)

Orange Crush (934731) | more than 5 years ago | (#28601047)

I've tended to roll my eyes at the newspapers whining about Google "stealing" their content. Changing their robots.txt is all it takes to keep Google's filthy little mits off their precious news sites. Of course, that also kills all of the free traffic the Google drives to their site--and pay wall or no, no readers means no ad views, clicks, and subscriptions.

Now . . . what exactly is this new model being proposed? Letting Google aggregate all the little news snippets and blurbs, but funneling all that traffic to a bigger walled garden containing multiple publications for a single fee is what this sounds like. If they get enough people on board, it might work. Or it might go the way of most non-porn paysites on the Internet and fail miserably. (My money's still on the "fail miserably" end result. I'm not seeing what's so terribly innovative about this.)

Newsgathering costs money, sure. And there should be ways of making that money. But it's going to take a bit more cleverness on the newspaper's parts than simply publishing online behind a pay wall. If they can't figure that out, then they deserve to fail and be replaced with something that does figure it out.

Re:Sounds liike it's just a bigger walled garden (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#28603375)

I think they are starting to shake down the ISPs. Maybe in the future internet access will also pay for some content.

Re:Sounds liike it's just a bigger walled garden (1)

quetzalblue (953290) | more than 5 years ago | (#28612325)

> I'm not seeing what's so terribly innovative about this.

As I watch the stock indexes crashing and zooming with absolutely no related "news" being reported AT THE TIME, I'm almost sure someone said something or, some related event occured that's not being reported. Sure enough, wait until tomorrow and get to read about why the market burped as it did the day before.

Now, if you think about it a few seconds, you might wonder how the market got wind of this and you or I did not. I'm pretty sure it was either business insiders or better access to news. Either way, the average (stock investing shmuck) is clearly at a disadvantage. Timeliness of news would be worth paying for in this case. As for what Britney had for lunch the other day might be relegated to trivia that can be harvested when it finally shows up for free.

You mean the Rupert Murdoch owned Dow Jones?? (1)

technomom (444378) | more than 5 years ago | (#28601261)

"High quality" news from the man who brings you Fox News, the New York Post, the Sun.....

Yeah, good luck with that charging for news idea (1)

m509272 (1286764) | more than 5 years ago | (#28601307)

The "high quality" comment almost made me pee my pants. Less optional stuff for me to read.

2 separate realities - dependent on wealth? (1)

yossarianuk (1402187) | more than 5 years ago | (#28601417)

Maybe this will cause a split - between the people who pay for their news and the people who will read random (free) blog style news.

Imagine the difference in world view. The split and level of knowledge of 'real news' may depend on wealth - not an ideal situation ..... However then again if Fox news charges and loses viewers this could help towards world peace....

Why not charge for live news coverage? (1)

Co0Ps (1539395) | more than 5 years ago | (#28601477)

I can imagine a newspaper pulling in money online by having free readers that can only read the body of news articles that are more than 30m-1hr old or possibly only short summaries of articles newer. And then having "premium subscribers" that pay a small fee to be able to read the news articles instantly with full coverage and analysis.

Possibly also having other premium features like ad free pages etc. Kinda like slashdot but more restricted.

Where are the weakness in this business model?

Re:Why not charge for live news coverage? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#28603353)

Screen scrapers will grab the current articles and put them online wrapped with their own advertisments.

"for access to high-quality journalism." (1)

WheelDweller (108946) | more than 5 years ago | (#28601677)

Someone has to actually DO that, first.

Before Watergate, journalism was what it was. Objective. Sure, they could WISH their guys would win, but they wouldn't jeopardize their standards to SAY so.

Then Watergate: reporters "take down" a president. Or so it appeared. Then all the sudden everyone signing up for journalism classes wants to "make a difference", which is NOT the intent of journalism at all. It's to REPORT THE ACTUAL NEWS.

Now, the three networks, who couldn't be bothered to get on a plane and go see the troops unless a nuke went off, were climing over themselves to take Obama there. Hey! How about the umpteen trips McCaine (the bastard) took and you wouldn't go?

And more recently, one network decided to broadcast a'la Provda, right from the White House on the issue of Healthcare, with no dissenting opinion. Da!

So yeah, if you can *find* high quality journalism, it's probably not American. Here, they don't bother to turn on a radio to learn about Limbaugh, they just use the 20-year-old stuff left behind by other 'journalists' and use presumptions. He's not racist, he's not homophobic, he's not a woman hater. But you'll ONLY KNOW THAT IF YOU LISTEN.

Re:"for access to high-quality journalism." (1)

unitron (5733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28604121)

He's not racist, he's not homophobic, he's not a woman hater.

He just plays one on the radio. : - )

Yeah, well they give away their papers for free. (1)

zerofoo (262795) | more than 5 years ago | (#28603719)

I've had at least one newspaper delivered to my house every day for the last few years, and I have not paid for a single one. My current free papers are the Wall Street Journal, and Financial Times.

It never fails - one way or another, I get free paper offers that usually last 6 months to a year. Usually they come in the mail (both home and work), or from an offer through my credit card company. The two local papers in my area occasionally drop their papers on my doorstep for a few months hoping to "hook" me. Between the free national papers, and the local ones, there is no shortage of free newspapers at my house.

Eventually the freebie ends and the publisher wants me to pay - to which I say "no thanks".

During the dry spells of free papers, I get my news through many online sources, or radio, or TV. Local news agencies have even started publishing news via free iPhone apps.

The end result of all of this is that there are just too many damn ways to get news for free. The cat is out of the bag, the toothpaste is out of the tube, and Elvis has left the building.

Ad supported "free" news is here and there is no going back.

-ted

"high-quality journalism" an new oxymoron (1)

Eric Elliott (736554) | more than 5 years ago | (#28615815)

After >30 years of journalism students being taught not to report the facts but to shape society, there is no high quality journalism. As an oxymoron "high-quality journalism" will never be as popular as "common sense", nor as misunderstood.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?