5 ms·

Because none of that is really free; it is a matter of determining the funding model. Newspapers haven't quite figured out the model, and during the transition

Because none of that is really free; it is a matter of determining the funding model. Newspapers haven't quite figured out the model, and during the transition we could end up losing a number of the 'quality' press and the institutional memory of journalistic practice that comes with the territory, which, depending upon your point of view, might be a net loss to society. For example: Open access journals aren't free. They are paid for through predominantly public funding and pubic/private grants to researchers and universities. They are only free in the sense that we are getting rid of the middle-man (private publishers) that in many cases have increasingly dubious value (pretty much all of the labour is actually carried out by uncompensated researchers) and in many are actually parasitic.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
leereeves 11y ago
A "middle man" isn't of dubious value and parasitic, the role is essential to connect producer and consumer, whether that be artist to listener, scientist to reader, teacher to student, or, in the case of news, witness or spokesperson to the rest of us. But it's a role increasingly performed by technology, and the traditional media may be as obsolete now as other middle men. Of course someone has to pay for that, but the service can be free for many users, paid for by alternative revenue models.
- shwouchk 11y ago
  I, for one, don't feel that technology is doing a good job in regards to finding music that I like, deciding which (academic) articles are worth reading, or which things are newsworthy and/or important for me to know. That's what publishers are for and that's what they'll stay for, in the near future at least.
- a_humean 11y ago
  The journal or the editorial board (staffed by publicly funded academics), as a connoisseur, is separate from the distribution mechanism that is the private publisher. My department at my alam mater edits a top 3 journal in my original discipline. My alma mater has to buy a subscription for this journal (including the hardback version that nobody reads) with articles written by uncompensated academics paid for with public funds; edited, copyedited and typeset by my uncompensated university's faculty paid for with public funds; and reviewed anonymously by uncompensated academics paid for with public funds. What do all of these parties get in exchange that costs the university library so much? Prestige for the department, university, and individual CVs for being associated with a top 3 journal in their discipline that happens to be owned by a private company. That seems like a parasitic relationship to me when the universities can just run the open access journal and retain the editorial board for very little by themselves. This is happening, but it just takes too long for a new open access journal to build reputation when careers are at stake with being associated with top journals.
coldtea 11y ago
>Because none of that is really free; it is a matter of determining the funding model. Even if not "really free" most of them now have marginal profits, whereas the use to command a premium in the past.
hessenwolf 11y ago
Hypothesis: It turned out that a lot of people did not want to pay for news. They wanted to pay for entertainment. Newspapers had a distribution monopoly, and chose what the users wanted to receive. Now that the monopoly is broken, other parties are providing services give for free. It turns out that many users are happy with those services. Some users wanted news enough to pay for it. Those users now pay subscriptions. However, the old news was subsidised by the users who just wanted entertainment. The new news is paid for by a smaller group. They must either pay more, or accept less news. I pay for financial news. There is no other news I would be prepared to pay for. I am not prepared to pay for entertainment, except the cinema and overpriced popcorn.
- dsr_ 11y ago
  Competing hypothesis: advertisers irrationally spent money on advertising, because they had beliefs about effectiveness and reach. Internet advertising comes with much better feedback mechanisms than ever before possible, destroying those irrational beliefs. Secondarily: advertising quality has generally been correlated to price. Internet advertising reduces the price so far that we don't just get the equivalent of a local used-car dealer in between the national toilet-paper ad and the international fast-food restaurant ad, we get a Nigerian 419 scam and Ed's Fantasy Football League afterwards.
  - hessenwolf 11y ago
    But isn't advertising spending increasing?
at-fates-hands 11y ago
>> we could end up losing a number of the 'quality' press and the institutional memory of journalistic practice that comes with the territory, which, depending upon your point of view. Like most things these days, finding good journalism tends to be exceedingly rare. In a world of over saturation of everything (books, movies, music, news), you really have to dig to find something that is objective, politically unbiased, and fair. Even 5 years ago, it was much easier to find dependable news sources and solid, objective reporting. Nowadays, I find I'm searching a lot longer to find something which isn't outwardly slanted in one political direction or the other.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

leereeves 11y ago

A "middle man" isn't of dubious value and parasitic, the role is essential to connect producer and consumer, whether that be artist to listener, scientist to reader, teacher to student, or, in the case of news, witness or spokesperson to the rest of us. But it's a role increasingly performed by technology, and the traditional media may be as obsolete now as other middle men. Of course someone has to pay for that, but the service can be free for many users, paid for by alternative revenue models.

shwouchk 11y ago
I, for one, don't feel that technology is doing a good job in regards to finding music that I like, deciding which (academic) articles are worth reading, or which things are newsworthy and/or important for me to know. That's what publishers are for and that's what they'll stay for, in the near future at least.
a_humean 11y ago
The journal or the editorial board (staffed by publicly funded academics), as a connoisseur, is separate from the distribution mechanism that is the private publisher. My department at my alam mater edits a top 3 journal in my original discipline. My alma mater has to buy a subscription for this journal (including the hardback version that nobody reads) with articles written by uncompensated academics paid for with public funds; edited, copyedited and typeset by my uncompensated university's faculty paid for with public funds; and reviewed anonymously by uncompensated academics paid for with public funds. What do all of these parties get in exchange that costs the university library so much? Prestige for the department, university, and individual CVs for being associated with a top 3 journal in their discipline that happens to be owned by a private company. That seems like a parasitic relationship to me when the universities can just run the open access journal and retain the editorial board for very little by themselves. This is happening, but it just takes too long for a new open access journal to build reputation when careers are at stake with being associated with top journals.

coldtea 11y ago

>Because none of that is really free; it is a matter of determining the funding model. Even if not "really free" most of them now have marginal profits, whereas the use to command a premium in the past.

hessenwolf 11y ago

Hypothesis: It turned out that a lot of people did not want to pay for news. They wanted to pay for entertainment. Newspapers had a distribution monopoly, and chose what the users wanted to receive. Now that the monopoly is broken, other parties are providing services give for free. It turns out that many users are happy with those services. Some users wanted news enough to pay for it. Those users now pay subscriptions. However, the old news was subsidised by the users who just wanted entertainment. The new news is paid for by a smaller group. They must either pay more, or accept less news. I pay for financial news. There is no other news I would be prepared to pay for. I am not prepared to pay for entertainment, except the cinema and overpriced popcorn.

dsr_ 11y ago
Competing hypothesis: advertisers irrationally spent money on advertising, because they had beliefs about effectiveness and reach. Internet advertising comes with much better feedback mechanisms than ever before possible, destroying those irrational beliefs. Secondarily: advertising quality has generally been correlated to price. Internet advertising reduces the price so far that we don't just get the equivalent of a local used-car dealer in between the national toilet-paper ad and the international fast-food restaurant ad, we get a Nigerian 419 scam and Ed's Fantasy Football League afterwards.
- hessenwolf 11y ago
  But isn't advertising spending increasing?

at-fates-hands 11y ago

>> we could end up losing a number of the 'quality' press and the institutional memory of journalistic practice that comes with the territory, which, depending upon your point of view. Like most things these days, finding good journalism tends to be exceedingly rare. In a world of over saturation of everything (books, movies, music, news), you really have to dig to find something that is objective, politically unbiased, and fair. Even 5 years ago, it was much easier to find dependable news sources and solid, objective reporting. Nowadays, I find I'm searching a lot longer to find something which isn't outwardly slanted in one political direction or the other.