5 ms·

Newspapers are dying off. Readers land on an article linked from Google then leave. Maybe in the interest of free speech, we do actually need the link tax. User

by dangjc 8y ago

Newspapers are dying off. Readers land on an article linked from Google then leave. Maybe in the interest of free speech, we do actually need the link tax. Users need to start using the homepages of these news sites and discovering their full reading experience.

CM30 8y ago
That doesn't mean we need a link tax. That means we need a new model for journalism that can pay the bills in the modern internet world. We shouldn't be trying to save the old formats beyond the point they're unprofitable, in the same way we shouldn't be trying to save most businesses and organisations when they can't make ends meet. The solution to issues caused by disruptive technologies and a change in culture is to find something new that works, not keep the old guard alive at the expense of everyone else.
hyperman1 8y ago
Nonsense. Newspapers are dying off because they aren't doing their job. They all copy news from the same few sources, and do almost no decent investiation. Why doesn't anybody care for more than a title and a short snippet? Because what's left is filler. I would really like a newspaper if it provided decent content. I would even prefer a weekly in depth edition instead of a daily dose of mcNews, we'll-give-two-sides-even-if-one-is-insane, and political opera. Now who can I give my money? A tax means google pays, not me, and they can continue creating garbage. The market has spoken, newspapers. Please do your job or drop dead.
- Jeff_Brown 8y ago
  When it was economic, there was lots of local news. That kind of news by definition cannot be copied; nobody else is writing it. The papers that are surviving the digital age are the ones with massive scale. Yes, the New York Times does good reporting, but that's not the only reason it's alive. It reports on things that a huge number of people care about. Those issues will keep getting at least substantial attention, if not the level they used to. On the other hand, lots of small rural places deciding, say, whether to frack near their river, don't get the kind of insights into the problem that they used to.
- satya71 8y ago
  Have you tried "The Economist"? It is weekly, in-depth, no fluff (mostly). Give them your money. Well worth it.
  - hyperman1 8y ago
    I'm not English-speaking, but as I'm already reading bbc and Al Jazeera, I'll give it a try. Thanks for the hint.
- King-Aaron 8y ago
  > I would really like a newspaper if it provided decent content. It's the catch-22 though, isn't it? If you want good content, you need newspapers to pay good writers. If you want them to be able to pay for good writers, they need a revenue stream. If you don't want to help provide a revenue stream until they provide good content, where does that leave you? Note: By "you" I mean "everyone"
beaconstudios 8y ago
> Maybe in the interest of free speech, we do actually need the link tax. The link tax isn't a free speech issue. It's an issue of news companies not adapting to the changing climate. Perhaps monolithic news companies will go extinct and be replaced by distributed individual citizen/contract journalism? Forcing a fee for clicking on news links is ridiculous because a) many companies already paywall their content so it's clearly already possible, b) it's attempting to force people to adapt to the news companies' business model rather than having them adopt to the internet and c) perhaps it's about time the news was democratised anyway.

by dangjc 8y ago

CM30 8y ago

That doesn't mean we need a link tax. That means we need a new model for journalism that can pay the bills in the modern internet world. We shouldn't be trying to save the old formats beyond the point they're unprofitable, in the same way we shouldn't be trying to save most businesses and organisations when they can't make ends meet. The solution to issues caused by disruptive technologies and a change in culture is to find something new that works, not keep the old guard alive at the expense of everyone else.

hyperman1 8y ago

Nonsense. Newspapers are dying off because they aren't doing their job. They all copy news from the same few sources, and do almost no decent investiation. Why doesn't anybody care for more than a title and a short snippet? Because what's left is filler. I would really like a newspaper if it provided decent content. I would even prefer a weekly in depth edition instead of a daily dose of mcNews, we'll-give-two-sides-even-if-one-is-insane, and political opera. Now who can I give my money? A tax means google pays, not me, and they can continue creating garbage. The market has spoken, newspapers. Please do your job or drop dead.

Jeff_Brown 8y ago
When it was economic, there was lots of local news. That kind of news by definition cannot be copied; nobody else is writing it. The papers that are surviving the digital age are the ones with massive scale. Yes, the New York Times does good reporting, but that's not the only reason it's alive. It reports on things that a huge number of people care about. Those issues will keep getting at least substantial attention, if not the level they used to. On the other hand, lots of small rural places deciding, say, whether to frack near their river, don't get the kind of insights into the problem that they used to.
satya71 8y ago
Have you tried "The Economist"? It is weekly, in-depth, no fluff (mostly). Give them your money. Well worth it.
- hyperman1 8y ago
  I'm not English-speaking, but as I'm already reading bbc and Al Jazeera, I'll give it a try. Thanks for the hint.
King-Aaron 8y ago
> I would really like a newspaper if it provided decent content. It's the catch-22 though, isn't it? If you want good content, you need newspapers to pay good writers. If you want them to be able to pay for good writers, they need a revenue stream. If you don't want to help provide a revenue stream until they provide good content, where does that leave you? Note: By "you" I mean "everyone"

beaconstudios 8y ago

> Maybe in the interest of free speech, we do actually need the link tax. The link tax isn't a free speech issue. It's an issue of news companies not adapting to the changing climate. Perhaps monolithic news companies will go extinct and be replaced by distributed individual citizen/contract journalism? Forcing a fee for clicking on news links is ridiculous because a) many companies already paywall their content so it's clearly already possible, b) it's attempting to force people to adapt to the news companies' business model rather than having them adopt to the internet and c) perhaps it's about time the news was democratised anyway.