Build the Wall Analysis

Section 1

This targets the New York Times and Washington Post about how they are coping with placing a pay-wall in relation to their audience.

Section 2

This focuses on The Times and The Post discussing if a pay wall will be effective

Section 3

This section discusses the reasons why there has been such a decline in the newspaper industry.

Section 4

This discusses the effects if The Times and The Post were to move to an online basis.

The main point of this article is to highlight the issues of newspapers and how firms may be more successful if they were to add an online paywall to their websites as this may be the only way how journalists get paid. In addition to this there was also a point being made of the quality of the newspaper and if that is said to increase then it is also likely that they will be more attractive and therefore attracting a larger audience that may not mind paying for the news. A more detailed argument also states how newspaper firms are not taking full advantage of the internet and how they are not maximising their facilities. Another strategy that the Washington Post And New York Times have adapted to is also of that if the price of their hard copy newspaper increased then they would not have to put up a paywall, however this is only possible if the newspaper has a unique selling point and is seen somewhat more attractive than the competition and alternatives.

Comment 1

I will never pay for “news” again. Most news is not truly news - it is sensationalism, hype and deception. Most news is not balanced - every editor is biased. And it is not just that - I truly can not afford to pay for news. Academics, especially with tenure, got it made in the shade and may be able to afford to follow the “news” as they are funded and it does not come out of their pockets. The question comes down to this - do we want an informed public or not. The answer, at least right now, is no. If the public were truly properly informed the American people would not allow Wall Street to gut Main Street, would not believe the lies of “the terrorists are going to destroy our way of life” and would understand that it really makes no difference - except in perception - of who holds the title of chief cheerleader - oops I mean Commander in Chief, President, which should be renamed CEO of America Incorporated. - See more at: http://www.cjr.org/feature/build_the_wall_1.php?page=all#sthash.xnNNyYHa.dpuf

I think that this comment has a fair point about some editors being biased and therefore what we are consuming is always an opinion of someone else and therefore we can not always trust what we read. However i do think that the people should be informed of the news as they will have a better awareness of worldwide issues.

Comment 2

Newspapers don't make profit nor do they pay journalists with subscription revenue. Subscription revenues pay for printing and distribution.

Online advertising generates less revenue than print advertising because the ad sales folks don't know how to sell it. Or price it.

Revenue generated by cable television is itty-bitty peanuts for cable networks. The real revenue for cable networks is advertising.

Local television news programs realize no meaningful revenue from cable subscribers. Local news programs generate revenue with advertising. Local news programs are delivered free to our televisions. This is stunning in its similarity to the current internet news model.

Folks using the internet pay for access, just like cable viewers.

Here's one item that troubles me: The proposal that newspaper subscription revenue pays for journalism. This is false. Advertising pays salaries. What is it about journalism, and journalists, that makes their words more valuable when printed on a piece of paper than displayed on a screen?

The ideas presented are interesting in their naivete. Go ahead, try the ideas. In time those pay-only news organizations will realize someone has been drinking their milkshake.

- See more at: http://www.cjr.org/feature/build_the_wall_1.php?page=all#sthash.xnNNyYHa.dpuf


I think that this person is against a pay wall as they clearly despise it in their last sentence. This person seems to think that journalists are credited highly when their words are on print however they are not valued when they are viewed on a digitial basis. I think this is true to an extent as online things can easily be manipulated by other users and there is less authenticity which means everything is valued to the same standard.

Comment 3

 Newspapers were the only collective up to date source of information before the web. The only reason you are still selling newspapers is because there are still people that have not discovered how to use the web.

Who would have paid to be able to contribute to this blog?? and the ones who do not even know it exists..?(they read newspapers).

I no longer need to get my movie sports etc infor from the newspaper. I get the "news"(information) directly from the supplier when I want it.

It is no longer possible to read only newspaper snippets and have an intelligent conversation with a teenager and expect you will be the better educated person in the conversation.

CHANGE your CONTENT to point to the web. Do not try and tell me your half of the story as the whole. Get me interested and point me to where I get the best educated, independant viewpoints. Summarise, investigate and report on the information avilable and being created on the WWW.

Not all people have a hunger for information and many will read only a yahoo summary page. Imagine a 70 year old newspaper reader telling his son what happened on Facebook today by reading the newspaper. Select and reduce information and ceate a "Push to Pull" medium.

The distribution channels need to distribute product as well. Deliver my order with my newspaper tomorrow morning.

Reading your laptop while on the toilet... just does not sound right.
Reading a morning newspaper in the sun with some coffee will remain a loved routine.

- See more at: http://www.cjr.org/feature/build_the_wall_1.php?page=all#sthash.xnNNyYHa.dpuf
This person thinks that the traditional newspaper is better than online news as they think that online people can be mislead with the sharing and opinions posted by others on other sights like facebook where users can influence their opinion on a story/article.

I personally think that as advancements in technology are increasing and the traditional newspaper is being more and more neglected over years, placing a paywall on news websites is exceptional idea as it maybe the only way in the future where a journalist gets paid. However i think that it may not be that successful as a company or person may be a subscriber and may blog or expose news articles for their own satisfaction for free meaning that companies who do have a paywall will be at a disadvantage. I think the only way a paywall would work is if there was a law in place that would mean we had to pay for all of our news. I personally would not pay for news at the moment because i can find out all stories somewhere on the internet at no cost. However if there was a time where there was no free alternative then i think myself and many others would pay for the news