Section 1

David is discussing how the fact that the internet is free, allows us to get news through various free websites. He is comparing newspapers and the internet. But, some people are still use to reading an actual newspaper, due to the fact that reading news online isn’t the same as reading it on a newspaper.

Section 2

I think that the article shows that more and more websites are joining to eliminate newspapers. More people in America are reading their newspapers now than ever before, they are reading more of The Times and the Post. It shows how the newspaper industry is declining and how some newspapers are vulnerable to one another.

Section 3

This shows that 10% of the existing 210,000Baltimore Sun readers, for example, who pay a subscription rate less than half the price of home delivery, or roughly $10, would represent about $2.5 million a year. Absent the cost of trucks, gas, paper, and presses, money like that represents the beginnings of a solid revenue stream. 

Section 4

This section shows that there is a risk of newspapers going behind a pay wall without local readers getting free national, international, and cultural reporting from the national papers. Some of the newspapers have already taken this action and it seems that it does work and more newspapers will join a pay wall.

Overall, I think that his point is correct only to a certain extent, as he is only comparing newspapers and the internet. The internet is becoming easier to access, and this is having a heavy impact on newspapers, as audiences are able to access news easily. He is backing only newspapers, which is clear, as he only says positive things about them. He thinks that they won’t die if they change the way they are currently running, as they could create a new wider mass audience, an example he used is the fact that newspapers have the ability to change the front covers and revolve around the entertainment industry.

I'd be glad to pay a subscription; hell, I pay subscriptions toward my TV bill to watch English football, and I would be glad to pay for my newspaper online as well. I don't work for free, why should any person think they should receive for free the work of tireless professional journalists? This whole internet fantasy has all the value and charm of a letter addressed to Santa Claus. Pay up, America, and grow up, too!

#49 Posted by Richard Steele on Fri 24 Jul 2009 at 06:18 PM

This person agrees with the journalist, as he feels sorry for the journalist and knows that that journalists work very hard having to provide the latest news for the public. He believes that that journalists do work hard and that they do have the right to charge customers for the newspapers. 

Fascinating. What about the big gateway sites, like Yahoo and MSN? I bet a lot of people mostly read their news on Yahoo's home page. Yahoo pays the AP,right? Is there some kind of wholesale deal possible there?

#12 Posted by Rob on Fri 17 Jul 2009 at 03:19 PM

 I agree with the fact that no one in the mass media are ready for the fact that internet broke the advertising business model. The content is valued however, it has been hidden in the advertising profits stream for so long, is there another place in the online environment that can shoulder that cost, in addition to subscriptions.

The reason NO ONE will pay for news is because print editors and reporters have killed the medium with their terrible writing -- "impacted," "presser," and "newser" are three horrid additions forced on the public lexicon -- and the fact that they didn't report ten years of wars, nor "reported" the financial and housing meltdown, nor are reporting on America's infrastructure crisis, nor will they report on healthcare.

But by Jove I can read in depth every time Sarah Palin empties her trash or another D-list celebrity dies from drugs or about Michelle Obama's latest fashion -- NONE of which any of us care about paying for.

#56 Posted by zaine_ridling on Sun 26 Jul 2009 at 08:09 PM

This person feels that no one would be willing to pay for newspapers, due to the fact that journalists have terrible writing and the fact that they haven’t reported financial data or about America’s crisis and healthcare.