Saxondale Posted 8 March 2013 Posted 8 March 2013 Newspapers should probably have got their heads together back in the 90s and come up with a collective agreement on how to monetise their product. Instead they just put their product on the internet, for free. It wasn't just newspapers. Everybody decided they needed to be doing something on the internet, but few actually worked out how to make money from it - hence the dotcom bubble. Interestingly, almost all of the internet gargantuans (Google, Facebook, etc.) were not conceived to make money at all, but to provide something that people might actually want to use. Only since have they been able to leverage their massive popularity to monetise their proposition.
OzFox Posted 9 March 2013 Posted 9 March 2013 The man/woman in the street with a camera/phone and internet access will be the ones providing on the spot 'local news' via social media sites and blogs where it will be picked up by someone else and put together with other stuff gathered from those sources, even now many media sources get their visuals this way. News organisations do get a lot of footage that way. The only problem is it takes a lot of time and staff to sift all the material coming in, especially for big events like the tube bombings, Egyptian revolution etc. On the other hand a lot of TV stories are greatly enhanced because a member of the public recorded footage, so as "newsgatherers" it's been really useful. I don't think the "citizen journalist" concept really took off as their websites are often lacking in quality and content. They need a lot of resources, and it can also be a legal minefield.
Voll Blau Posted 9 March 2013 Posted 9 March 2013 Adblocker? ........and i can assure you that online advertising does not come even remotely close to the "rivers of gold" that newspaper advertising used to provide. There are very few websites that are profitable from their advertising revenunes alone, especially news sites. Other than the biggies, (Google, Yahoo, Facebook) most website advertising is pocket money. The cost to staff a real newsroom is huge, witrh the devolution of the newspaper, we are losing access to real news, which is an enormous loss for all of us. Community "journalists" and bloggers are not going to be able to do the job that real journalists have done in the past. IMO, we will have to see an enormous change in the way we access the internet eg. we pay for a lot more, or we just accept that news as we know it is dead. Oh..and protection of whistle blowers is essential... if we dont have an independent honest media, we MUST protect those that come out and tell the truth, but as shown by Manning and Assange et al, thats not happening now and i cant see it changing in the near future. Whistle blowers are heroes, its time they were recognised as such. Correct. Plus let's not forget the potential perils of relying on "citizen journalists" (don't like that term) for content who aren't trained in media law (contempt, libel etc).
Rincewind Posted 9 March 2013 Posted 9 March 2013 The man/woman in the street with a camera/phone and internet access will be the ones providing on the spot 'local news' via social media sites and blogs where it will be picked up by someone else and put together with other stuff gathered from those sources, even now many media sources get their visuals this way. Exactly. Camera phones are all around us and the quality is improving.. I know a pro photographer who has taken many photos on the spot with his camera. The man in the street version of an incident will most likely to be undoctored as it will be put straight on YouTube or other social network. This is where community news agencies can florish. DNO the one I have just joined had an underspend with funding last year so has cash to expand and improve. Hoping to get more equipment as part of the job. Should carry one around all the time and do on the spot filming,interviews etc. Our aim is to capture the event from a different perspective. The more we get noticed the bigger we will become and will enable to take on and train more staff. Not sure how long I'll do it though because of my age but it's good to be with them at the start. I have four years to pension age so there is time to see how it goes.
Rincewind Posted 9 March 2013 Posted 9 March 2013 Correct. Plus let's not forget the potential perils of relying on "citizen journalists" (don't like that term) for content who aren't trained in media law (contempt, libel etc). I Correct. Plus let's not forget the potential perils of relying on "citizen journalists" (don't like that term) for content who aren't trained in media law (contempt, libel etc). We have been made aware of the media laws. In my start up pack there is information on definition of libel and slander. Before anything is made public it is checked. Also before each interview we record the permission from the interviewee to use it as well as having them to sign a form.
Raj Posted 10 March 2013 Posted 10 March 2013 Cant beat chilling at home with the sunday papers! Help the printing industry and buy one!!!
Deep Purple Posted 11 March 2013 Posted 11 March 2013 Why buy the Mercury when you can read it for free online at http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news#axzz2N8yRrOy6
ADK Posted 11 March 2013 Posted 11 March 2013 The collapse of newspapers and news media in favour of simple reporting of facts and video footage could be a very important step towards a better society.
Parafox Posted 11 March 2013 Posted 11 March 2013 Correct. Plus let's not forget the potential perils of relying on "citizen journalists" (don't like that term) for content who aren't trained in media law (contempt, libel etc). People need to remember that libel, contempt and defamation laws also apply to electronic media.
Guest Posted 11 March 2013 Posted 11 March 2013 The collapse of newspapers and news media in favour of simple reporting of facts and video footage could be a very important step towards a better society. And where does the thought that we'll have simple facts reported in the future come from?
ADK Posted 11 March 2013 Posted 11 March 2013 And where does the thought that we'll have simple facts reported in the future come from? Its easier to get access to primary sources these days. Eg someone taking a video with their phone or a celebrity sharing a comment on twitter.
Webbo Posted 11 March 2013 Posted 11 March 2013 The collapse of newspapers and news media in favour of simple reporting of facts and video footage could be a very important step towards a better society. The fact that 1 outlet , the BBC, control 80% of the media in this country is bad for democracy. With the papers declining that isn't going to get any better.
ADK Posted 11 March 2013 Posted 11 March 2013 The fact that 1 outlet , the BBC, control 80% of the media in this country is bad for democracy. With the papers declining that isn't going to get any better. I didn't know that, i rarely watch the bbc news beyond the headlines its dreadful. I always thought the papers were bad for democracy with "tory" papers and "labour" papers.
Webbo Posted 11 March 2013 Posted 11 March 2013 I didn't know that, i rarely watch the bbc news beyond the headlines its dreadful. I always thought the papers were bad for democracy with "tory" papers and "labour" papers. There's nothing wrong with differing opinions, all papers have an agenda and we all know what they are. The danger is when we only have 1 opinion to listen to.
ADK Posted 11 March 2013 Posted 11 March 2013 There's nothing wrong with differing opinions, all papers have an agenda and we all know what they are. The danger is when we only have 1 opinion to listen to. I don't know, if it was my opinion i wouldn't mind
leicesterseddon Posted 11 March 2013 Posted 11 March 2013 Can't see pay to read taking off. If I want general news i'll go to the BBC or just watch the news on tv before I pay for it. If I want more in depth analysis then the future is independent journalist who have sufficiently monetised their free to view blog. Why would I continue to pay for the entire media infrastructure required to produce a full news site when I can just access the content I want direct from the journalist and everyone's a winner. I guess the media know this is how things will go, hence why they're still offering free content. True. Although the fact remains that a fair proportion of news stories covered by the broadcast media are actually investigated, researched and broken by professional journalists in the newsrooms of traditional print newspapers. You only have to listen to the Today programme for an hour or so to realise that the broadcast media are actually quite parasitic. Without newspapers the BBC website would largely be a collection of videos about dogs that can walk or cats playing the guitar, etc.
Voll Blau Posted 11 March 2013 Posted 11 March 2013 The collapse of newspapers and news media in favour of simple reporting of facts and video footage could be a very important step towards a better society. And an increase of wholly unqualified people spreading hearsay and rumour at their own behest. Yes, newspapers have their own agendas but so do people..
Guest Posted 12 March 2013 Posted 12 March 2013 Its easier to get access to primary sources these days. Eg someone taking a video with their phone or a celebrity sharing a comment on twitter. It was more the use of the word "Facts" that worried me. Everybody has a bias and even the way that "facts" are reported biases them. Personally I love the BBC. Think it's a great institution.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.