Hard News: Trust. Us.
100 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
Sounds like everyone is in. How about . . . website as described where all the stories are published during the week and then bundled up at end of the week, supported by giveaway printed sheet in city locations (simple as double-sided A4) with briefs of the stories on it and URLs to follow for the full story, supported by TVNZ6 weekly show (a la RB's) that highlights and follows up on a couple of the stories, supported by slots on friendly radio stations, supported by weekly slots in the suburbans or independent papers that are interested.
And, here is a fun one for you all, news reel at the beginning of movies, just like the 1940-50s. Who's doing that these days! -
neither online journalism nor online payment systems are mature enough for this to happen. Yet.
My thinking on this is that Newspapers already have a payment system for their employees and freelancers. The transition from print to online should be as simple as replacing your Printer with a webmaster (do we still use that term?) reducing production costs and raising revenue through advertising. No big change to anything but coverage.
-
Comments?
People seem to be very reluctant to pay for online content. I'm happy to be proved wrong but I can't think of a notable single web model that survives on public subscriptions.
So if this is going to work it'll have to involve either printing and selling a dead tree edition or making your money through advertising like everyone else.
I'm also skeptical about the public demand for quality freelance journalism; the newspapers publish all those Paris Hilton stories for a reason - because that's what most people are genuinely interested in.
-
Stephen Judd wrote:
I am IN.
er... to quote from a recent email of mine on this topic -- which sought to answer the question "apart from PAers, who else would you find to write for such a publication"...
... talented online writers such as Stephen Judd, Idiot Savant, Don Christie, Paul Litterick, Robyn Gallagher, Craig Ranapia, Kracklite, Bart Janssen, Steven Price...
You were kind of already in (hypothetically)...
-
I'd be all over this like a thing which is all over another thing. I'd also be fine for a hundred bucks a year. Hell, my soccer subs are more than that.
Here's a thought, which I'm not sure is a Stupid Question or not: Are there any avenues for government funding of a venture like this, in the manner of an arts grant? Or would government-derived funding defeat the purpose? -
It sounds like a very good idea. A weekly newsmagazine would have the advantage of not needing to meet a daily deadline (needing print capacity, plus journalists up half the night to fill that space).
-
Keith: Yup, sounds like OpenSalon to me. (Details on their payment system here). But I'm not sure yet how successful it is at getting cash for authors.
Such a system also seems perfectly compatible with traditional web advertising systems. But I think the big problem is - as Danyl notes - that people are reluctant to pay for online content (though micropayments - "click here to give me a buck!" - may be a way aroudn this; the dificulty is in making them quick and easy).
-
I'm also skeptical about the public demand for quality freelance journalism; the newspapers publish all those Paris Hilton stories for a reason - because that's what most people are genuinely interested in.
I'm skeptical about this kind of skepticism. I believe that much of the mysterious, invisible public see through the bullshit that the mainstream news media churn out and that they've simply given up on it, preferring to escape into celeb-worship fantasyland. If a viable alternative was offered I suspect many would take it.
Ominously, I'm sure that's why Investigate et al succeed(?) - because a certain section of the public views them, however wrongly, as the truth-telling alternative to a churnalism-ridden MSM.
-
"I'm also skeptical about the public demand for quality freelance journalism; the newspapers publish all those Paris Hilton stories for a reason - because that's what most people are genuinely interested in."
That's a fair point. However the reason I suggested a not-for-profit model is precisely to deal with that economic implications of that fact.
Now, if quality freelance journalism doesn't make a difference in the world, then there isn't really any point in taking this further. But it is an article of belief for me that it does.
-
A daily would be a very difficult starting point, but one could easily imagine a weekly news magazine that would be something like a quality version of The Listener.
Zing!
Love Keith's micropatronage idea, although $1 per article is pretty steep - you can get a whole newspaper these days for little more than that, and often it includes the marvellous blood pressure-raising properties of a column by Michael Laws, which cannot be beat.
But people are stingy (none more so than yours truly), and yes, subscription models have been tried and have failed all over the shop. Some sort of trust or endowment would be an interesting avenue, but for that kind of thing to be established somebody has to see a serious need. Personally I would say that there was such a need a few years ago, in spite of the excellent efforts of National Radio, but now we have a cohort of sexy, well informed, marvellous bloggers who are willingly to plug the holes for free. So unless they all went on strike all of a sudden, or were pressed into service a-la Ng, one could argue that we are pretty well served on the information front as things stand - except for the bloggers themselves, that is.
That said, by all means, count me in, I'd redirect the money of my Listener subscrition without batting either of my pretty eyelids.
-
The writers would have to donate their time until the advertising and print sales become profitable
You mean like most of us do already?
-
I believe that much of the mysterious, invisible public see through the bullshit that the mainstream news media churn out and that they've simply given up on it . . .
Although I don't think any of our newspapers are perfect I think the Dom-Post and The Herald are both pretty good. I think people prefer media outlets like Investigate because it flatters their ideological viewpoint about the world. While the newspapers are attempting to provide an objective viewpoint Investigate is joyously biased; Wishart's rants are also a lot more entertaining than reading a bunch of dry old balanced facts.
My concern about this project is that it would be a left-wing version of Investigate; a pleasant alternative to people who don't enjoy hearing unpleasant facts about the political parties they like and a way for people to feel as if they are being informed without having any of their preconceptions challenged.
-
I omitted to say this in the last discussion the PA contributors had about this, but I regard Crikey as the most viable model to emulate. It works.
-
Sounds like a great idea and I don't want to frustrate any progress with it but must mention:
If we're looking at an outlet of independent journalism that can challenge established powers in the media and society some thought is needed as to how to fund legal support for the inevitable assaults against this.
-
I omitted to say this in the last discussion the PA contributors had about this, but I regard Crikey as the most viable model to emulate. It works.
Do you have insider knowledge of how much money the contributors actually make? Are we talking need for a second job, breadline, fair pay?...
-
Do you have insider knowledge of how much money the contributors actually make? Are we talking need for a second job, breadline, fair pay?...
Don't have any insider knowledge, sorry, but the income of 14,000 subscribers plus advertising would give you quite a bit more to pay your contributors than a blog with banner ads.
-
Do you have insider knowledge of how much money the contributors actually make? Are we talking need for a second job, breadline, fair pay?...
An interesting question. They basically charge the cost of a monthly magazine for a subscription, and have ~10,000 subscribers. But their costs are a lot lower - delivery by web and email, no printing or chuckaways. Still, its not clear if they actually turn a profit.
-
I omitted to say this in the last discussion the PA contributors had about this, but I regard Crikey as the most viable model to emulate. It works.
It sure does, at least from a readers' perspective. I know literally dozens and dozens of subscribers each of whom are paying at least $60 per year (there's a few ways to get discounts on the usual price) and it would be one of the more important sources of government-related and corporate information. Whether they're making a buck, I don't know. Stephen Mayne, founder, sold it a few years back, I can't recall the details, so it was at least lucrative enough to have a buyer. Lots of the content is however provided by people who have other jobs but there's a staff of, it seems, six or more... A NZ version would be ideal and I'd definitely buy it (bear in mind though, Crikey comes out daily and would run to ten pages easily - if printed)
-
Still, its not clear if they actually turn a profit.
In a country with five times our population. So let's say we can rack up 2,000 subscribers, but we'd still have more or less the same overheads, in the sense that it'd still take the same number of people to produce the thing.
Still, 2,000 subscribers at $100 per head is 200k. If the ads produced enough revenue to pay for the technical cpsts, servers, etc. we'd (you'd, someone'd) be in business. You could pay 3 full-time staff writers with that kind of moola.
-
(bear in mind though, Crikey comes out daily and would run to ten pages easily - if printed)
I would be more likely to read it all the way through each day if I did print it off, but it seems wrong (for the cost, for the planet) to do that. I wonder if something not quite so voluminous might have more appeal.
-
... talented online writers such as Stephen Judd, Idiot Savant, Don Christie, Paul Litterick, Robyn Gallagher, Craig Ranapia, Kracklite, Bart Janssen, Steven Price...
<blush>I'm IN</blush>
-
I wonder if something not quite so voluminous might have more appeal.
The way it's formatted however, with hyperlinks in the email, means you don't need to print it off to skim read and skip around to the items of most interest. Many of the items run around the same length as a standard PA item so on occassion, it's a good read on the train home (I can finish ten pages in about the length of time it takes me to ride the train home). I understand your enviro concerns, and largely agree them, but there's still plenty of folk who like the tactile experience of a piece of paper.
-
talented online writers such as Stephen Judd, Idiot Savant, Don Christie, Paul Litterick, Robyn Gallagher, Craig Ranapia, Kracklite, Bart Janssen, Steven Price...
<sighs and pretends he got to be in the club too>
-
Crikey comes out daily and would run to ten pages easily - if printed)
i used to read crikey in the early days and it was... sparse.
they got a couple of huge shout-outs from the msm and then they were off.
pretty sure this idea would track the same, imho.
-
er... to quote from a recent email of mine on this topic -- which sought to answer the question "apart from PAers, who else would you find to write for such a publication"...
It is somewhat ironic that David H has been hitting me with the good ideas by email and I've been too stretched to come up with a suitably intelligent response. This sort of discussion works better anyway ...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.