3 ms·

I didn't want to imply your last paragraph and I'm certainly one of those willing to pay for journalism. My critique lies solely with publishing houses and comp

I didn't want to imply your last paragraph and I'm certainly one of those willing to pay for journalism. My critique lies solely with publishing houses and companies behind journalists that don't keep up with the times. I don't think it's simple either but if we can agree on that I'd suggest it's not as simple as a general "there's free content now, let's screw journalists over" attitude either. In all honesty I feel like journalism and journalists are almost an afterthought when I look at most of the news I'm offered these days and if that's the case why would I blame anybody to take the free option? > Is it possible that a sufficient number of people aren’t willing to pay for information if it’s available for free with zero friction, and that is why journalism is having a tough time? While the short answer might be yes, I'm not sure how to argue against that point without whataboutism. The world, and especially how it's people consume information, changed in the last few decades, I don't see these companies adopting, most of them seem to be fine with a senseless defence of a status quo they would never be able to build up today. Business models come and go, an industry as large as mainstream news media can't get their act together and figure out a model that people are willing to pay for. Instead they cripple innovation by lobbying for legislation like the one discussed in the article. tl;dr: If news outlets let themselves get killed by the inevitable death of print media I just don't see how that's the people's or the internet's fault. They have enough collective resources to come up with an alternative.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
You don’t think journalists tried to “get their act together”? This very forum has people copy pasting entire articles from paywalled websites, not to mention the innumerable posters complaining about journalists asking for payment in the first place (I.e. complaining about paywalled websites). I think it’s false to say “news outlets let themselves get killed”. If it’s that easy to say, then go ahead and put forth a business plan that can succeed even with people copy pasting your text to different websites for free consumption.
- tastroder 7y ago
  > If it’s that easy to say, then go ahead and put forth a business plan that can succeed even with people copy pasting your text to different websites for free consumption. I think it would be worth to give the same way a try that effectively killed video and music piracy over the last decade. Content delivery across media, across devices, with less friction than it is now to visit some ad infested site or sign up for weird, non-obvious paywalls for each and every single outlet. Maybe give other players a chance, like Apple News or even the here mentioned Google News, and work with them instead of going down in their shadow. You'll always have piracy but if you give people convenience you can still turn a profit, especially on a website like HN copy&pasting articles wouldn't be a thing if people felt it was less ethical than just paying for a good service. I don't want to suggest that it's easy or that I've got a business plan to save the news industry, I'm merely trying to express my frustration with how they currently handle it (but yes, I feel like at least part of that is self inflicted by the industry). As for your first point, I'm sure journalists tried. We've even seen some nice initiatives in Germany where they tried to get people to sign up to purely journalist-driven services. Not sure what came out of that tbh. But that brings me back to the thing that my main grievance are not journalists, I honestly admire people that chose this profession, especially those who don't end up rewriting press releases or clickbait headlines for some blog to make a living.

lotsofpulp 7y ago

You don’t think journalists tried to “get their act together”? This very forum has people copy pasting entire articles from paywalled websites, not to mention the innumerable posters complaining about journalists asking for payment in the first place (I.e. complaining about paywalled websites). I think it’s false to say “news outlets let themselves get killed”. If it’s that easy to say, then go ahead and put forth a business plan that can succeed even with people copy pasting your text to different websites for free consumption.

tastroder 7y ago
> If it’s that easy to say, then go ahead and put forth a business plan that can succeed even with people copy pasting your text to different websites for free consumption. I think it would be worth to give the same way a try that effectively killed video and music piracy over the last decade. Content delivery across media, across devices, with less friction than it is now to visit some ad infested site or sign up for weird, non-obvious paywalls for each and every single outlet. Maybe give other players a chance, like Apple News or even the here mentioned Google News, and work with them instead of going down in their shadow. You'll always have piracy but if you give people convenience you can still turn a profit, especially on a website like HN copy&pasting articles wouldn't be a thing if people felt it was less ethical than just paying for a good service. I don't want to suggest that it's easy or that I've got a business plan to save the news industry, I'm merely trying to express my frustration with how they currently handle it (but yes, I feel like at least part of that is self inflicted by the industry). As for your first point, I'm sure journalists tried. We've even seen some nice initiatives in Germany where they tried to get people to sign up to purely journalist-driven services. Not sure what came out of that tbh. But that brings me back to the thing that my main grievance are not journalists, I honestly admire people that chose this profession, especially those who don't end up rewriting press releases or clickbait headlines for some blog to make a living.