×

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!

CNN Now Offers Free Online Video

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the baby-stepping-to-on-demand-internet-tv dept.

Television 372

Drinian writes "It seems that CNN is now offering its video FREE to the public. Apparently, this is a response to pressure from FOX News who has always offered free video. Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

372 comments

Free as in beer? (2, Funny)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882652)


Apparently, this is a response to pressure from FOX News who has always offered free video.

Well, first of all, it's nice to see that Fox 'News' is actually good for something...

Although 'free' might be an exaggeration, as you do have to pay for the video by sitting through an obligatory advertisment before you get to the good stuff...but that's OK...the part of my brain that processes commercials is just a big knot of scar tissue anymore. Anyway, you're on your computer, so you can use that time to do constructive things, like find and mark a few mines, or put the red seven on the black eight.

^_^

OT- Stop the shitty manual emoticon sig please ^_^ (-1, Offtopic)

ZackSchil (560462) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882727)

Could you please put that stupid ascii emoticon in a sig. I turned off sigs for a reason: I found them annoying. Tacking one on manually is worse.

Re:OT- Stop the shitty manual emoticon sig please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12882800)

Hey, you can't talk to TPM like that, he's special. Best damn Chinese karma-whore I ever saw!

Re:Free as in beer? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12882732)

Well, first of all, it's nice to see that Fox 'News' is actually good for something...

Yes, other than getting real news out the door.

Re:Free as in beer? (-1, Troll)

Trip Mastur M0nkey (894218) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882816)

As I reflect on my own postings, I'm amazed at my insight. I am truly a god among men.

Slashdot needs a +1, Moronic Airbag moderation. Mod me up, mod GP down! The jihad against MonkeyBoy has just begun!

CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... (4, Interesting)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882654)

...to win viewers/readers from FOX News. There's a Newsweek piece [msn.com] about it this week.

[CNN president Jonathan] Klein is making revolutionary changes at the cable network--scrapping signature broadcasts like "Crossfire" and "Inside Politics," shaking up his morning-show ensemble and his prime-time producing staff, and creating a new international news show at noon. These are only the first steps in a broad overhaul plan aimed at getting the pioneering and once dominant cable news network out of a seemingly perennial second-place finish, far behind Fox News.

And before anyone complains, you may be interested in at least considering:

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Med ia.Bias.8.htm [ucla.edu]

which finds, in part

Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News Special Report received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. Moreover, by one of our measures all but three of these media outlets (Special Report, the Drudge Report, and ABCs World News Tonight) were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than to the median member of the House of Representatives. One of our measures found that the Drudge Report is the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample. Our other measure found that Fox News Special Report is the most centrist.

and

Based on sentences as the level of observation (the results of which are listed in Table 8), the Drudge Report is the most centrist, Fox News Special Report is second, ABC World News Tonight is third, and CBS Evening is last.

Given that the conventional wisdom is that the Drudge Report and Fox News are conservative news outlets, this ordering might be surprising. Perhaps more surprising is the degree to which the mainstream press is liberal. The results of Table 8 show that the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, USA Today, and CBS Evening News are not only liberal, they are closer to the average Democrat in Congress (who has a score of 74.1) than they are to the median of the whole House (who has a score of 39.0). [...] the New York Times is twice as far from the center as Fox News Special Report, to gain a balanced perspective, one would need to spend twice as much time watching Special Report as he or she spends reading the New York Times. [...] Our results contrast strongly with the prior expectations of many others. It is easy to find quotes from prominent journalists and academics who claim that there is no systematic bias among media outlets in the U.S. [...] The main conclusion of our paper is that our results simply reject such claims.


Please note:

These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample. (emphasis mine)

It makes me sad when people can't tell the difference between NEWS and OP-ED. Do people also have that same problem with the editorial page of the New York Times? Or just, say, Sean Hannity on FOX News? Is it acceptable to judge the news gathering and reporting capability of the Times by exclusively evaluating the content of its opinion page?

Further, one of the prime measures this report uses is the scoring for members of Congress by Americans for Democratic Action [adaction.org] (ADA), the self-described "nation's oldest liberal lobbying group".

Now, some might say that comparing news to members of Congress, be they Democrats or Republicans, isn't an effective measure (especially if you believe there is virtually no real difference between today's politicians). But at least take time to consider the report.

Various FOX News "watchdog" groups are a dizzying array of alleged inaccuracies in FOX News opinion and editorial shows, with almost nothing in actual NEWS content (and certainly not more than any other news organization). Further, whenever FOX News does commit an error in NEWS content, it voluminously and repeatedly spends the next hour, or at least that news show/hour, correcting itself for the benefit of people who may have missed the initial correction. And that event itself is a rarity. About the only complaint people have in news content is FOX News substituting "homicide bomber" for "suicide bomber". Which is, frankly, a perfectly acceptable description of that particular act, though replacing the word "suicide" with "homicide" in externally sourced material is questionable (FOX News has now stopped that practice).

But if it makes people feel better, or more self-righteous, or whatever, to consider FOX News a far-right-wing Republican/conservative Bush administration propaganda mouthpiece, more power to them, I suppose. (Have any of these people ever watched a non-op-ed, i.e., NOT Bill O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes, etc., hard news show on FOX News, which consumes the majority of the news day from 8am until 7pm?)

And finally, for those who think this is off-topic: just look at the astounding number of posts denigrating to FOX News sure to be found in this article, many modded to +5.

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... (0, Offtopic)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882785)

lol.. mod parent +5, Funny.

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12882935)

lol. mod parent -1 stupid groupthink...

No clue what you're talking about... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12882797)

...look, the precise complaints against Fox are that they leak in opinion to their so called "hard news" - their main anchor is pretty obvious in his political affiliation, the balance of pundits and opinions is also pretty obvious, and the few suposed "liberals" present (Alan Colmes) are essentially straw men. Compound this with their sensationalistic aspect (really scarier than any partisan bickering), and you'll see why so many people criticize Fox News.

I'm sorry, but your post amounts to little more than FUD.

Re:No clue what you're talking about... (1)

donutz (195717) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882847)

.look, the precise complaints against Fox are that they leak in opinion to their so called "hard news" - their main anchor is pretty obvious in his political affiliation, the balance of pundits and opinions is also pretty obvious

Wouldn't you prefer that the biases of their anchors and the rest ARE obvious? It's easier for you to weigh what they're saying, and which stories they choose to cover, and which they ignore...if you know which way their political allegiance slants, and how far.

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12882818)

You bring up valid points, and, honestly, I'm looking forward to giving that UCLA paper a read when I get home from work. That's a subject I've had discussion with friends with quite a few times.

But, I do think there may be some use in evaluating the content of editorial pieces along with and seperated from the actual news pieces.

IMHO, a lot of people may be combining the two (a frightening practice, I agree, no matter what the leaning of the news channel) when they watch their chosen news outlet. And the editorial choices of the channel, I think, should be condidered in some measure of that channel's leaning.

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12882820)

You're going to get modded down:

-1, Not Dogmatic

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... (4, Insightful)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882836)

Americans have such a twisted & skewed idea of what being 'liberal' means, or even 'leftist.' Your average democrat in congress supports big business, tax breaks for them as well (look at the voting record.) Big military (check the voting record again.) And will do whatever they can to stop any form socialized healthcare (think back to hillary's little action committee & the all the democrats that lambasted her for even suggesting health care be nationalized.)... That's your average american democrat.. and that's what you call a 'liberal' .. To me, it's all Very right, Right.. slightly right and then Kucinich.

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... (2, Insightful)

Koiu Lpoi (632570) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882899)

So, by that token, with Fox News being centrist according to the studies, they really are rather rightist?

Note you need to take a world political view, not just American one for this to work.

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12883009)

From a world political view, Fox News is screaming off the deep end crazy right-wing extremist.

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... (1, Funny)

Shihar (153932) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882989)

Americans also have a skewed idea of what it means to be 'right wing'. Your average 'right wing' European is for walling up the nations borders and uses near facist rhetoric when talking about cultural integrity and when speaking against immigration.

The US is a place of centrist. The European left and right and miles left and right (resepctivly) of American left and right. Paralmentary systems naturally tend to bring in people from a very large spectrum, both left and right. The American system on the other hand tends to move people into the middle. The US surely right (in terms of economics) of Europe, but don't let the fact that the American left is not that far left confuse you as to how far left they are. They both have their advantages.

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... (4, Interesting)

Uruk (4907) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882998)

Some people say that the "conservative" party members in European politics would have no chance in American politics, because they would be considered lunatic leftists with a fringe agenda that no American would dare back. In other words, the conservative European politicians are to the left of the American democrats.

That's just the difference between third-way european quasi-socialism and American quasi-capitalism. One of the underlying differences in cultural assumption is that Americans tend to think of the government as primarily something that's there to preserve their personal freedom and economic freedom, while Europeans might feel that the government is primarily something to look out for the welfare of the people. These are goals that are sometimes contradictory, such as when you ask the question, "should health care be open for competition, with maximum options for the patient, or should it be a state-provided service guaranteeing full access to everyone?"

I'm not sure there's a better solution here, but there's no denying the major differences between the two systems.

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12882846)

Bullshit,

Liberal bias simply means showing both sides of the story -- unless you are counting Air America in which those guys are utter freaks and most of us on the left hate them as much as Rush Limbaugh (note the ways Franken makes Liberals look like an idiot by not even being able to graciously take an award from an admirer and respect them...I can safely say Limbaugh would have had the respect to thank everyone and get off the damn stage).

Yeah, thats what Liberal Bias is...telling people there are two sides to the story. Conservative bias is saying this is the official party line and if you think anything differently, you must not be a patriot (a phrase thrown around as if their party is the only owner of it, much like Hates America or I'm A Christian).

I will say, I do like O'Reilly...not the part about talking down to his guests at times (though he has toned that down), but he at least makes his decisions on his own and doesn't need to run them by the RNC before hand.

Past O'Reilly, fuck Fox News. They claim to be news, but the minute anyone says shit about them, they scream But Its Editorial. I'm sorry, but editorials need to be based in reality as well. You can have your own opinion on things, but if your opinion is spouting out lies over facts, then thats not an opinion but propoganda. I love opinions from people that come to a conclusion different than mine based on fact. Other than O'Reilly, the conservative media knows nothing about doing this.

Again, Fuck Fox News.

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... (3, Insightful)

aftk2 (556992) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882853)

One might assume that, if your network's name contains the word "News," you'd hold all your broadcasts accountable to the same level of accuracy and minimization of bias.

And pray tell... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12882880)

What exactly does your long-winded whine have to do with the topic in question?

Mark parent Offtopic. Parent is a far right whiner (probably evangelical) trying to take every opportunity to "evangelize" us with his views at every opportunity. Look at his posting history/website for further evidence.

PS: Not a troll. I have nothing against anybody of any faith/political bias/etc, so long as they don't try to dump their views and so called "values" on others.

Re:And pray tell... (1, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882965)

I explained exactly what it had to do with the topic in question, which is why CNN is so far behind FOX News in ratings, and is trying to do something about it, which then responds to the

Also, if you think I or FOX News is "far right", you have no fucking clue what "far right" is. Further, I am not an "evangelical". And lastly, I'm not sure what on my web site [wisc.edu] you find objectionable or "evidence" that I'm an "evangelical". In fact, there is nothing related with any religion or evangelism anywhere on my website.

Also, what in the living FUCK does any of my post have to do with "values"?

I await what is sure to be a stunningly cogent reply.

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... (3, Insightful)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882901)

This isn't news to those who have actually watched the darn channel. Gretta Van whatever, Geraldo, Juan Williams, Gen. Wesley Clark appear on Fox News all the time. It's just that they are to the right of most liberal media outlets. And some far-out leftists view liberal media outlets conservative because they aren't socialists.

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... (4, Insightful)

harks (534599) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882917)

So the media has a liberal bias because it is more liberal than the average member of Congress. Does anyone else see the problem with this basis for comparison?

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882925)

"[CNN president Jonathan] Klein is making revolutionary changes at the cable network--scrapping signature broadcasts like "Crossfire" and "Inside Politics," shaking up his morning-show ensemble and his prime-time producing staff..."

One thing they need to look at...Fox News has by far, the best looking news chicks!! Good grief...they are easy on the eyes. Juliet Huddy makes it fun to watch the weekend morning news...Laurie Dhue, Kiran Chetry....etc. Hell, even Greta got a face lift when she came to Fox from CNN. Get with the ball....good looking people can report the news just as well as ugly ones....get on the ball, and get some better looking news chicks on CNN.

Amazing! (0)

Trip Mastur M0nkey (894218) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882657)


Apparently, this is a response to pressure from FOX News who has always offered free video. Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?

This question leads directly to my question: Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet? Fascinating insight!

Don't let TMM win! Karma me up and help save /.!

Nail in the Coffin? (1)

Enigma_Man (756516) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882667)

Who's paying for video over the internet? I didn't know that ever was conceived, fertilized, or left the womb.

-Jesse

Re:Nail in the Coffin? (1)

justforaday (560408) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882770)

CNN's videos were only available if you were a subscriber to the RealOne SuperUberMegaPass. Thank god they've finally ditched that...

Re:Nail in the Coffin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12882784)

Prn

- nuff said

Re:Nail in the Coffin? (2, Interesting)

agilen (410830) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882869)

I do. I pay to subscribe to MLB.TV, major league baseball's live online video service. Its the cheapest way for me to watch my favorite team, who is outside the area where I live.

Now, paying for CNN online, when I can easily get it with cable, is a completely different story...not something I would do.

Fuck Fox News! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12882669)

Fuck them and the bigoted suits who run it!

Re:Fuck Fox News! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12882823)

You havne't watched CNN v.s. the Christians, have you?

fff (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12882670)

firdst!!!!

Ive Given Up on Internet Video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12882672)

everyone wants a different version of some player, and all the players want to own my box.

Re:Ive Given Up on Internet Video (2, Informative)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882983)

" everyone wants a different version of some player, and all the players want to own my box."

Use MPlayer [mplayerhq.hu] , it plays just about everything out there....and does lots more than just play....

No Way (4, Insightful)

Luigi30 (656867) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882678)

Of course it's not the death of paid content. There will always be a low-quality feed for free, but for a few bucks a month you will always be able to upgrade to a higher-quality feed. It's the way of the internet, and it's not going away any time soon.

No Way-Copying and Distribution wants to be free. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12882916)

Quote: "Your 'higher-quality' video wants to be free."

"It's the way of the internet, and it's not going away any time soon."

It's the "moral relativism" that's the problem.

It's video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12882679)

And you call yourselves editors? You could at least do the courtesy of [sic]ing it.

Pressure from Fox? (4, Interesting)

TPIRman (142895) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882682)

I think the OP is correct that other sites' offering of free video likely played somewhat into the decision to go free on CNN.com, but I doubt that was the primary motivation. More compelling is the theory that CNN saw an improving Web ad market [internetnews.com] and decided that the balance sheet finally worked out in their favor again. (I say "again" because cnn.com video was free once before, way back in the day.) Indeed, a big part of this story is that CNN was able to line up major sponsors [mediapost.com] for the free-video launch.

As for pressure from Fox, CNN has been losing in the TV ratings for some time, but the people at CNN (I worked there for a while) take great pride in the fact that the website has held its own and remains one of the most-visited news sources on the Internet. Foxnews.com, while definitely drawing a large audience, isn't even close to CNN.com, so the "pressure" on that front would be more of a keeping-up-with-the-Joneses deal for CNN.com than anything else.

MSNBC.com, however, is hardly a slouch when it comes to site traffic, and their free-video service has become very popular. If any significant pressure is being placed on CNN.com in the online space, it's from MSNBC rather than Fox.

Re:Pressure from Fox? (2, Informative)

GarfBond (565331) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882868)

It might also be important to note that CNN has switched from Real SuperPass (and hence the RV9 they used to use) to Windows Media 9. To me, this means that they lined up another big sponsor in Microsoft.

This is a disappointment to me, as it means that I'm not entirely sure I'm always going to be able to watch these videos on a Linux or Mac system; WM10 isn't out on Mac, and obviously never will be for Linux. Real has generally been fairly consistent with clients being available for all 3 big platforms. Mplayer is nice but official clients are even better.

This isn't about nails, or coffins. Micropayments (2, Interesting)

Phoenixhunter (588958) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882683)

This is about finding the right balance of providing content that people are willing to pay for, and who are willing to go elsewhere for.

Ultimately this will be about finding the right number, in both how much people will pay, and how many of them will. Once we have a solid online payment solution, whether it is Paypal or Google Wallet, or whatever, that allows us to spend relatively minute amounts (ie $0.10) with ease, this shouldn't be a problem.

Pressure from Competition? Where is the evidence? (3, Insightful)

ranson (824789) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882686)

"Apparently, this is a response to pressure from FOX News who has always offered free video. Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?"

Apparently Drinian thinks he knows the inner-workings of CNN? I see no evidence anywhere (press release or otherwise) to support the idea that this was done to alleviate pressure from competing networks. Perhaps CNN struck some advertising deals that would yeild them more money? Perhaps they realized their subscriber base is so small that maintaining subscriptions was more costly than the revenues from them. There are lots of reasons why the video is free now and i don't think a slashdot headline is an appropriate medium to express the submitter's baseless presumption as to why it happened. With that said, lets all be happy that we have more free news :)

FOX and CNN (1)

Enoch Lockwood (889602) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882688)

Dear god, people. If you're getting your daily dose of world politics from these "news" agencies, it's time for you to wake the hell up.

Pre-digested, right-wing biased and US-centric reporting. So what's new? Now you can get videos on CNN, too? Oh, rapture. How about you switch off your TV and start getting your news from independent, completely non-affiliated sources?

Re:FOX and CNN (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12882764)

When your default karma gets out of the negative, maybe I'll start listening to you. Until then, shut the fuck up you anti-American piece of shit!

Re:FOX and CNN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12882870)

The problem there is that whenever I ask people like you for some exact sources of "better" news, it's either other sites with just as much bias (and generally the "Amerikkka is the root of all Evil for the past billion years!!!!" type), or those creepy, font-size:2px political manifestos splattered about the Web thanks to Microsoft FrontPage.

I don't think there *is* a non-biased news source.

But, hey, I have learned that the United States caused the Tunguska event, and George Bush personally caused the Black Plague.

...another question... (2, Interesting)

venicebeach (702856) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882692)

Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?

Or, is this a nail in the coffin of paid (news) content on television?

When you can get it for free (with ads) on demand on the internet will you pay to have it on TV?

is this Microsoft only? (2, Informative)

worldthinker (536300) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882694)

Confirmed. Requires Windows Media Player. blech!

Re:is this Microsoft only? (2, Informative)

Mnemia (218659) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882855)

It works 100% fine for me with the mplayer plugin under Linux (w/ the WMP codecs, of course).

Re:is this Microsoft only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12883016)

Doesn't work for me, but I'm pretty sure it would work if only they would cut the autodetect crap and just link to the video file instead.

Can you do me a favor and tell me how to manually turn a javascript link like

javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/showbiz/2005/06 /22/nat.top.movie.quotes.affl','2005/06/29');

into a url to an actual video file, in case I see something which I'd like to check out someday?

Is this... (2, Insightful)

eviltypeguy (521224) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882697)

Is this another article that wants to speak to me like I'm a contestant on Jeopardy? Seriously, the "Is this..." question at the end of "news" "articles" on Slashdot is starting to get old real fast. I'm not on a gameshow blast it!

Will you please learn to spell friggin' "its"? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12882700)

For heaven's sake?

Communist News Network (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12882702)

I guess there are people who are gullible enough to believe what CNN tells them to believe.

CNN (3, Interesting)

kevin_conaway (585204) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882707)

Now I can see round the clock coverage of the latest missing girl / boy and who won the latest Fox reality TV show. Seriously, how come they don't report NEWS anymore? All their front page head lines are just BS.

Re:CNN (2, Interesting)

Iriel (810009) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882987)

I think it's mostly because the pop-American trend for TV is getting way too drama based. Every minute, the 'news' is telling you:

"Your neighborhood is no longer safe. Is the government cheating you out of hard earned money? (Insert new crash diet) is sweeping the nation with reports of (success | hospitalization). More breaking coverage on celebrities that you'll never meet."

They realized that they don't need content anymore as long as watching becomes an experience comparable to a rollercoaster or new horror/suspense film. And now it can be delivered in high quality video. Pretty soon, news video pages will be virtual copies of iFilm.com :)

Wasn't it "free" before? (4, Insightful)

DJ Rubbie (621940) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882714)

If I recall correctly, a while ago (3 years ago or so) CNN offered videos for free to the public before they added in a paid to view pass system.

Re:Wasn't it "free" before? (1)

b1t r0t (216468) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882955)

I seem to recall this too. Not that I ever really cared to watch them in the first place.

Mod parent +5 funny :-) (3, Interesting)

tekiegreg (674773) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882728)

Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content?

HAH! I subscribe to 3 paid sites. Granted I'm a part-time investor, I find thestreet.com and wsj online to be quite handy. Also consumerreports.org for a small fee keeps me tuned to what is good out there and what is a scam.

Sure I can try and pirate the content out there, but that would require some searching and a guilty feeling for making/saving money at others expense and all these paid sites are very good in and of themselves. So paid content isn't going away any time soon.

Would I pay for CNN though? Something that I can easily find on TV? Probably not, but again by that logic, how many people watch CNN (a PAID cable channel) and still go out and pay the $0.35 for the Los Angeles Times? People will pay for what they perceive as good content, online or wherever.

Ya Gotta Serve Somebody (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882736)

You always have to pay. Maybe the cost is in accepting unfair/unbalanced video from Fox. Maybe the cost is in accepting CNN's more subtly tuned, yet just as programmed, corporate agenda. But at least we can choose from multiple video sources now, without needing a profit to justify paid consumption. Now, the video aggregator who can correlate the videos from these reportedly "fair/balanced" and "liberal" news corporations with each other, and with Republican Party PR, will really have something worth watching.

Free CNN Video - Worth Every Cent (1)

RagingChipmunk (646664) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882738)

If I wanted to see politically sanitized 'news' reporting I'd turn to CNN first. If I want to see politically biased reporting it would be Fox. So, instead I just surf the worlds news sites and form my own opinions.

Not only FOX, but MSNBC too (1)

Harry Balls (799916) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882751)

MSNBC has offered free video for a long time.
Preceded by a short commercial, granted, but free.
They also had a live video stream when the verdict in the Michael Jackson trial was announced.

nail in the coffin of... (0, Redundant)

jdunlevy (187745) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882754)

Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?
Why not ask whether it's another nail in the coffin of (non-internet) television?

Naked news (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12882760)


Naked news is still paid service. Yes people pay for that.

Re:Naked news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12883007)

Similar to CNN, Naked News also used to be free (for small resolutions), but then they switched to an all-pay model too.
(I seem to recall they did this right about the time I switched from dialup to broadband...bastards! :-)

Hopefully Naked News will also see the error of their ways and switch to a free service now also.

I saw the free video the other day (1)

amichalo (132545) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882765)

I saw a story about Tom Cruise having watter squirted on him by some "journalnist" (but we better protect Bloggers from prosecution when they go public with trade secrets they knew were protected by NDA).

I just though the video was so bad, they knew no one would pay for it.

Still, I didn't watch it because it required Windows Media Player - which I refuse to install.

Joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12882782)

Want to know the difference between CNN and Slashdot? CNN reports news, and Slashdot is gay

eat me fags

Not a nail in the coffin of paid, valuable content (1)

jordandeamattson (261036) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882799)

All of those hailing this as another nail in the coffin of paid content on the Internet should notice that what you paid for on CNN was content that was free on my cable channel.

This is clearly a broken business model. Why in their right mind would pay for what they can get for free.

On the other hand, I am more than willing to pay for content which is valuable, unique, and not available for free anywhere else.

For example, I (and many others) have a subscription to the discussion boards at The Motley Fool. It is well worth it.

Yours,

Jordan

Re:Not a nail in the coffin of paid, valuable cont (1)

Tiresias_Mons (247567) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882850)

"This is clearly a broken business model. Why in their right mind would pay for what they can get for free."

Well semantics here, but you're not getting it for free if you are paying for your cable.

Why yes, I am a nitpicky bastard. =p

For the record, no, you should not have to pay again for content that you already paying for somewhere else.

Re:Not a nail in the coffin of paid, valuable cont (1)

jordandeamattson (261036) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882975)

Yes, you are right. I am paying for cable. But as you note, I am paying for it somewhere else and paying such a low price for the value received, that it seems like "free" to me.

Re:Not a nail in the coffin of paid, valuable cont (1)

Bimo_Dude (178966) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882961)

CNN was content that was free on my cable channel.

... and how much do you pay each month for basic cable?
Most of the content on their site/channel is not worth my time or money anyway, so I just use various web sites (US domestic and international) in an attempt to get a better rounded view of the news, and I don't have to pay for it anyway.

Well.... (0, Flamebait)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882814)

The Democrats need to get there propaganda out there too.

Re:Well.... there not using CNN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12882947)

I'm sick of all mainstream network news. It's all crap and none of it is REAL news? Downing street minutes anyone? Google news is truely non-bias and you can find any "angle" you want. But since when did news have to "fit" your idology anyway. Stop watching that crap!

Re:Well.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12882951)

right, since every pundit on cnn is a liberal ...or maybe, you just never watch the damn channel to find out that cnn is a moderate, corporation-loving news feed rather than the Republican gang bang called Fox news.

The Idiot Window.... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882826)

I saw the link. I thought it was trick and didn't click. Why watch talking heads when you can read the text instead. Reading is the best thing for a Democracy.

So what? (0, Redundant)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882849)

I still won't watch it.

You know why?

"This video has been optimized for windows media player 9."

Fuck that, release a URL to a .mpg or an AVI using MPEG1 and MAYBE I'd consider watching it.

Short of that I'll just read news.google.com and watch CNN [among others] when I get home.

Tom

Reply to article question - and more. (2, Insightful)

Wanderer1 (47145) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882864)

"Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?"

No.

"Supply and Demand"

Clearly, at some juncture, things will evolve past the point where "free as in beer" is the norm, but as long as one of your competitors offers the same service for free, unless you have something people are willing to pay for, you're cannot easily compete with the guy down the street offering an open keg tap.

So far, I've paid for a Salon subscription (no longer,) and a Slashdot subscription (awhile back) because I wanted to support both enterprises. I also tend to pay PBS and a small radio station (WCPE) which provide material I enjoy with good quality or ideals that I wish to further in the world.

You may remember, CNN and Fox News get their revenue on the television by selling advertisements. Why would online be any different?

What you really should be asking yourself is: Is the future of computer network media *sales* in the hands of the podcaster? And if so, will micropayments finally succeed? Visa, Mastercard, Amex? Are you listening? And, oh, by the way, have you had enough ID theft to start using those smart-chip equipped cards yet? I am tired of waiting!

W

american propaganda machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12882885)

Well who cares anyway... both of those are little more than the american gouvernement's propaganda tool, you get more content on american politics on international stations like the BBC or the canadian broadcasting corporation's little coverage of american news... too bad everyone in the world is paying with their health and security because of the "choices" made by americans...

OMG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12882894)

Fox News murderated teh internets! Bush's fault!

more video? but I just watched fox! maybe tomorrow (1)

urbieta (212354) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882895)

I am just done watching the news at FOX and I get this news?

Maybe Ill watch CNN tomorrow, who knows which has the best quality ;)

Let them slam their ads at a side! no problem with me ;)

btw thw scandals at the UN are fun ;)

Real media content (1)

Therlin (126989) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882904)

I thought you had to have a real guide pass (or whatever it's called this week) to access the video.

I'm guessing that this change also has to do to the lack of revenue coming from that venture. Which would confirm the fact that Real is having problems attracting people to pay for their premium content.

False Dichotomy (2, Interesting)

Moiche (840352) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882911)

Not to be too pedantic, but framing the discussion in terms of paid content/no paid content offers two options, neither of which is accurate. "Nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet"? Who is the poster kidding? So CNN is streaming free video. So what. NYTimes, which has long offered its daily paper free after registration (insert slashdot/NYTimes registration meta humor here), is going to start charging for its OP-ed columns [corporate-ir.net], and a few other tasty morsels. Does that mean that we can expect (or have we already seen) a news item on slashdot referring to a "nail in the coffin of free content on the internet" -- because NYT is starting to charge for content?

I mean . . . it's not that hard. Intarweb is new tech, in that society had really integrated phones until about half a century after their invention, and we are still within three decades of the DARPA network. The market hasn't really figured out what works paid and unpaid on the internet -- hence the juicy webcomic discussion/controversy [penny-arcade.com] over whether or not micropayments work [goats.com]. But we can count on the fact that there will always be some stuff that is paid content (because the cost of development and provision far exceeds the potential income derived from advertising or marketing while providing the content free) and some stuff that is free. Things like the CNN streaming of live video is just the market settling -- and I guarantee that the streaming video will incorporate advertisements, so by some definitions, it's not exactly free. Seeing anything in the CNN decision regarding the larger issue of charging for content on the internet seems to me like sophomoric thinking -- unless I'm missing something?

Regards,

Moiche

BBC anyone? (1)

g-san (93038) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882922)

I was watching the BBC online for free back in 1999.

And this is really odd. Public broadcasting is being phased out [google.com] and we get an article about CNN offering it's video for free. We need to get our priorities straight before someone starts straightening them out for us.

Are you kidding? (1)

javelinco (652113) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882930)

"Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?" - this is a joke, right? I mean, you do understand that this has no bearing on reality?

Depends (1)

dankasfuk (885483) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882931)

Personally, I don't see the point of paying for something like CNN. Paid content should be original enough to warrant the cost. Paying for news feed(to me)seems a waste of money. News is news, and it is possible to view it on any number of countless other sites, sans video. However, some content I would be willing to pay for. Channels such as TLC and Discovery have shows I wouldn't mind paying a subscriber fee in order to view at my lesiure. For example, I would much rather pay for unlimited access to Modern Marvels or Mythbuster than I would to buy DVDs at 29.95 a pop.

why buy the cow twice? (1)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882948)

Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?

No, this is another nail in the coffin of the idea that people will pay for content on the internet that they can get for free* from other distribution channels.

(* I realize cable television isn't actually "free", but with so many advertising-subsidized channels to choose from, the cost of CNN's programming alone is too cheap to meter.)

Pointless move (1)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882952)

IMHO.. see the thing is, websites like CNN/Fox News/etc try to make it impossible for the viewer to save the video files to disk. They never provide "right click link to save video file" or whatever. So what they offer is a low-bw feed for free... If I upgrade to the premium package and pay $5 month, I still only get one time viewing.. it's too restrictive.

Now if I could save & share those high bw feeds over the internet, I might be interested in a subscription. Until then, there doesn't seem to be any value in it, because i can just turn on my tv and get a higher quality viewing.

Nail in the coffin (1)

Dougthebug (625695) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882962)

In other news...

As paid content continues to rise in popularity, slashdot can now put the final nail in the coffin of the 'nail in the coffin' story punchline.

Probably not (1)

suitepotato (863945) | more than 8 years ago | (#12882976)

Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?

As long as Danni's Hard Drive is around, I'd say not.

Did you want to qualify that as "paid news content"? Since the free stuff is BS I'd pay to get them to just print the facts sans op-ed slanted writing.

Free content? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12882979)

If you are forced to look at ad's before you watch the video or while you are watching, I wouldn't call it free.

Unfortunately no (1)

Tenebrious1 (530949) | more than 8 years ago | (#12883002)

Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?"

No, as many nails as we pound into the "paid content" coffin, the ones we really want... (cough)PORN(cough)... will never be free.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...