And Another Thing…

I completely agree. While having to pay for the Times inconveniences me, they are perfectly right to make people pay.

In principle, I agree that we should pay for quality journalism, and indeed, I do pay for what I perceive to be good quality writing.

Will I pay for The Times though?

Not really – because too little of the daily “news” is of the quality that is worth paying extra for – as in a premium above the cost of the subsidy via advertising.

What differentiates The Times from The Independent, The Metro or the BBC is NOT the news, but the columnists who only write for one paper. The Times is not charging for news – they are charging for fluff and chatter.

I am not sure I want to pay for the personal musings of various celebrities though.

I would however consider paying a flat fee for access to a limited number of “news stories” from a wide range of newspapers – but if The Times wants me to pay a specific fee for its news coverage, then they need to start delivering not only a better quality of writing, but also a greater quantity of “not available anywhere else” exclusives.

I buy The Economist each week and read about 90% of the content in it. The Times is lucky if I read 20% of its content. That is why I get pleasure in paying for The Economist, because it delivers incredible value for money.

The Times has me sighing in resignation as I hand over my money.

It’ll be interesting to see how successful the Times service becomes. The selfish skinflint in me hopes it will fail but the sensible bloke there knows we must pay if we want decent journalism to thrive. The position of the BBC is tricky, it certainly distorts the “market”.

When the Independent quietly abandoned its paid for content in 2006 I wrote this: http://tinyurl.com/35wdckv …

I take it you’ve not got to write anything for the Mail on Sunday for quite some time, Tom. This puff piece will soften them up.

Generally speaking, you’re correct. People should have to pay for decent journalism, there’s no doubt about it. The problem is duplication. The stories reported are very similar across all the media outlets, so what you see in The Times, you’re likely to see in the Daily Mail. The only thing that will be different is the opinion and the style of reporting.

As for blogs, it’s a mixed bag, it’s safe to say. There are some brilliant ones out there that really make you think. In their defence however, I should point out that bloggers are at least honest about their bias. Newspapers often aren’t.

Yes-ish. BBC News isn’t free – licence fee payers have been funding it all along, so there’s no reason why other news distributors shouldn’t charge for their services. I think subscription services should be advertisement-free, though, including satellite and cable TV. If you pay directly for a service then you shouldn’t be subjected to commercial breaks or roll-over web advertisements, IMO.

Tom, I too agree; we think the BBC is free but of course it isn’t. I’ve paid for access to the Financial Times for years and can’t see what all the fuss is about.

It reminds me a bit of something I read about the novelist Nancy Mitford. She admitted that her aristocratic upbringing in the 20s and 30s her made her quite bizarrely naive about day-to-day realities.

She remembered being astonished at getting her first phone bill after leaving home. She said up until then, she’d vaguely assumed that the phone system was free because it worked like a force of nature.

“If we value journalism” – there’s the rub. While journalism in principle is an important bastion of freedom, in practice it is all too often an unthinking mouthpiece of corporate propaganda, dominated by the All Seeing Eye of Mordorch. That’s why this insignificant little Hobbitt is hoping that market forces prevail, and Mordorch finds itself shrivelling away as people go elsewhere for their information.

“But blogs are, on the whole, amateur affairs, offering plenty of subjective opinion and the occasional interesting fact, spun in a particular direction. The USP of any newspaper worth the name is journalism.”

That’s why I read the Daily Mirror: straight-up factual journalism with not a hint of party bias.

Plus, of course 95% of a newspaper’s content isn’t just regurgitated Associated Press or Reuters stuff.

Yes, Tom, you’re bang on the money here.

As ever.

This is uncharacteristically wrongheaded of you Tom.

Firstly, journalism never made money from journalism (and the requisite IP protections) – it made money from advertising, but print advertising has always been the Emporor’s Old Clothes – people knew half their ad spend was wasted, just not which half.

The internet foudn them out – Craigslist took the classifieds and online advertising metrics began to expose how ineffective advertising around interesting content actually was. The media industry had a tool to cut 60% of costs by going online only, and is only now going broke.

I think journalism is in rude health – it’s the media industry that’s struggling, but I couldn’t care less. The bundled content, the two-steps-above-lowest-common-denominator general news and sport, the celebrity bumpf inserted to help SEO – you’ll pay for this?

I’ll pay for the New Yorker – 6000 word pieces of extraordinary journalism that take 6 months to research and write. But the Times? Really.

Congrats to the Guardian for having the sense (and moral principle) to say that news and analysis should be the preserve of eveyone irrespective of ability to pay. Free Culture as a movement is about increasing access to information (news, academic, creative) because the greatest tragedy of this world is the untapped human capital of those not linked to these things. Restricting access just to ensure a full time wage for content producers is stupid and wrong – people will create great content without the guaranteed incentive (and so the heavyhanded defence of that incentive, by way of DRM enforcement inevitably seems ugly).

Murdoch destroyed Friendster and is doing almost as well with MySpace – he is not a web mogul, even though he was a great Press Baron in his day. He will destroy these papers, because the Gardian and the Mail have said they will remain free to read online. They are becoming more popular and more successful commercially as a result.

I’d like this to be a battle between defenders of IP protection and Free Culture as much as you, Tom, but it isn’t in this case. This is about common sense. Consumer data is monetiseable, and more so than advertising, but not 20 times more. If Murdoch only gets 5% to sign up at the extortionate prices (as much as a print edition, with only half the costs?) then he will lose money and the Guardian and Mail will win.

It worked with the WSJ (I know the guy who introduced the paywall there) because it was specialised and high-quality content. That simply isn’t true of the Times, or most of the British press.

I’ve just finished Journalism School, and I don’t disagree that trained journalists are a helpful addition if you want to have a healthy critical press. But I can’t accept the carping that somehow the world owes journalists (trained or not) a living. By philanthropy, public sector broadcasting, or volunteerism of the reporter, crowd sourcing, more digitasing of information bringing untold efficiencies to the reporting process – in any number of ways (professional) journalism will survive. I don’t see why we should defend a 20th century model of employing them as though it was important as the work they actually produce.

“Congrats to the Guardian for having the sense (and moral principle) to say that news and analysis should be the preserve of eveyone irrespective of ability to pay.”

Did The Guardian have the moral principle to make its content available regardless of the ability to pay before the advent of the internet? I don’t recall them having the principle to give away copies.

The world doesn’t owe journalists a living. But I believe that workers should be paid for their labour. And neither you nor I have the “right” to free journalism. The Mail and Guardian have not opted for a paywall yet because they’re waiting to see if the Times paywall will actually work. If it does, then we’ll see an about-turn.

The debate seems slowly to be tilting towards paying in the same way that the hoo-haa a few years back over paying for music has given way to general acceptance that forking out is the right thing to do.

The argument can be framed in a simple way – if something is worth reading, it is worth paying for. An easy concept. I suspect that the Times pay wall will have plenty of windows for people to peek through and also that the payment models will be simplified – maybe the website bundled in with the iPad app.

Equally, acceptance of paying after so many years of getting it free will take time – years not months.

Worthwhile arguments Tom, but built on the fundamental fallacy that the protection of journalism is assured by the protection of national newspaper companies.

I will pay for the Times Online the day it stops producing ill-researched pap. Journalism, it ain’t.

Point in case: the day immigration figures are published showing negative values (ie net emigration), The Times headline went with “IMMIGATION SOARS …” and left the inconvenient fact that immigration had collapsed to one sentence at the end of the article.

I have seen only one decent article from the Times, that was an investigation into mistakes in our strategy in Afghanistan, which clearly looked like it had taken a lot of time and effort to research. Sadly, the Times editorial team decided to blow it out of the water by hiding most of it around the edges of a two page graphic.

I pay happily for the New Yorker, the Economist and the FT. These are intelligent, journalistic publications. The Times is not one of them.

Excellent article, Tom. I’ve always been mystified by people who think that this paywall is some great evil. After all, we were perfectly happy to pay for newspapers before the internet came along, and I don’t see much difference between buying a newspaper and paying to access a website.

Oh, and speaking of market distortion, I get the feeling that there are far too many newspapers out there. We have 3 (BBC, ITV, Sky) main news networks yet 8 or so newspapers covering the same demographics.

It seems to be that private entities through their preparedness to subsidise are preventing the inevitable – that is the merger and agglomeration of many news titles.

Oh, and speaking of market distortion, I get the feeling that there are far too many newspapers out there. We have 3 (BBC, ITV, Sky) main news networks yet 8 or so newspapers covering the same demographics.

It seems to be that private entities through their preparedness to subsidise are preventing the inevitable – that is the merger and agglomeration of many news titles.

Hello Tom,

Have you missed me? Since the new government took over, my business has never had such a profitable time, and so I haven’t had the time to read your blog.

Ahem, okay, my main business is selling flags and it’s the World Cup.

Would I pay to read The Times over the internet? Not a chance! I hope this is another nail in the MSM’s coffin and that folk will indeed visit more blogs where they will find enlightenment.

If I had never read blogs and small independent news websites I may never have learned that the left/right political paradigm is just a crude tribal device to make the people who live in “democracies” believe they have power and influence, when global banking and industrial cabals are really in charge.

I have received emails from people who have thanked me for opening their eyes to things that they would never have discovered in The Times. I’m sure that many bloggers must have experienced likewise.

There are many great bloggers who know how to read between the lines. They are far more worthy to be read than the papers owned by a tiny band of the mega-rich.

This would be the same organisation that outed Nightjack in a fit of pique would it?

Is that the kind of journalism you think deserves funding?

I believe that if an individual or organisation has a product that others want, they have every right to charge for it. That does not mean I approve of every editorial judgment ever made by The Times or any other newspaper. That’s not what the post was about.

Is that a tacit admission? After all, you are going to be funding this kind of journalism. And it kind of is what this post is about, since it’s right there in the first paragraph.

It’s a pity you are being so defensive about it.

“So I hope that the Guardian, the Telegraph and the Independent will, in due course, follow News International’s lead, forcing those still determined to get their broadsheet news for free to rely on the BBC website.”

What, so you don’t feel so stupid for paying for substandard journalism?

Tom,

Two responses – I don’t think anyone has the right to free content (and I didn’t use that term) but rather that were are better as a society if everyone has unfettered access to information (creative and news etc). The biggest tragedy is the waste of human potential because of lack of access to sources of inspiration – how many Einsteins, Beethovans and Cronkites did we miss because they weren’t plugged into the academic/journalistic/creative world?

The second point is that the Guardian didn’t make that decision in print because they couldn’t. I don’t mind insisting on paying for a physical newspaper, because it required capital to print it and distribute it.

I’m not averse to demanding that labour is compensated – I wouldn’t work for a newspaper for free for example.

The issue is whether in an age where infinite copies of digital content can be made at no cost, that content should still be kept out of people’s hands because they cannot or will not pay exorbitant prices for it.

I don’t think you have a right to free content, but I also don’t accept the right to restrict your content unless you’re paid. Be it through advertising, monetising audience data, philanthropy, consumer donations (a la Radiohead), or public service funds, I think we can pay for the input (ever decreasing costs of filmmaking, musicmaking, journalism/blogging) without charging the end user, and that’s in all our interests.

We need to find a way to fund the minimal capital investment in creating content, and the labour taken to produce it. Paying for the intellectual property I don’t support.

If we found a way to reproduce an unlimited amount of bread for next to no cost, would you insist that access was limited unless people pay the baker for the intellectual property rights? Of course not.

Can you imagine stymying progress in mathematics, by only allowing people to use your work to develop their own proofs if they licensed your proprietary formula? No.

The only purpose for the short life of copyright and intellectual property prtectionism was to “encourage people to produce”. Take away all the funding and people will still produce great journalism, great music and great films. For people who are serious about those endeavours, they will do them whether they are funded or not.

The greatest contribution of the patents system to innovation was to give Einstein a basic salary whilst he developed the General Theory of Relativity for no commercial gain.

IP belongs to the last three centuries. It’s time to let it die, and the dinosaurs who think it owes them a living with it.

You imply that BBC news is free, but of course it is not. I have no problem if news sites wish to charge, but I will not subscribe. I would prefere to purchase the print version that I may do from time to tme as with the Sunday Times, if only to read Winners Dinners.
Far too many people in Britain want something for nothing that has been encouraged by years of Labour government and its hand outs. Its all change now, starting with the Times and am pleased you are supporting the free market Tom.

I’m in favour of paywalls.

I do think that if you want good journalism then you have to pay the journalists.

I was a journalist for some years myself and I didn’t do it just for love.

“…forcing those still determined to get their broadsheet news for free to rely on the BBC website.”

The BBC website isn’t free – I’ve paid my £140 licence fee so it’s very much not free.

I didn’t say the BBC website was free (although it’s free at the point of use) – I said that those who want to get their news for free will use the BBC site.

Morus–

” I don’t think anyone has the right to free content (and I didn’t use that term) but rather that were are better as a society if everyone has unfettered access to information (creative and news etc). The biggest tragedy is the waste of human potential because of lack of access to sources of inspiration – how many Einsteins, Beethovans and Cronkites did we miss because they weren’t plugged into the academic/journalistic/creative world?”

But as journalists (authors, musicians, film-makers…) still need to get their money from somewhere, where do you propose they get it? Intellectual property may not be perfect, but it’s the best way of ensuring that carrying out artistic activities is profitable enough to represent a viable method of earning a living. You suggest later on that people will keep making art without any funding. Some undoubtedly will, but unless they can make a living from it, only the already rich will be able to devote their full time to it, meaning that the output of quality art would almost certainly decrease.

I think the BBC should charge for its web site if you have not got a valid TV licence number linked to your E mail.

Just buy the paper if you want it.

OK, I assume I’ve missed something.

Johnny,

I haven’t had a TV licence since 2005, so I suppose my visits to bbc.co.uk are rare cases of freeloading.

I mainly use their vidiprinter but as for the news, I prefer to get my information from more reliable sources, like rumour and small children.*

*Sledge Hammer

The Times tried charging for it’s online news around 12-13 years ago (as have the Indy & Guardian & NYT at various times). They all relented when the others didn’t follow suit.

I don’t have a problem as long as the fee is cheap; I won’t pay the cost of a full newspaper for the 3-4 articles I read a day.

I signed up early and haven’t been charged (yet).

[...] in Labour MP Tom Harris’s defence of newspaper paywalls, he draws a distinction, arguing that blogs are: “amateur affairs, offering plenty of subjective [...]

“Ask yourself: would our nation be better or worse off had the Telegraph not been able to resource its investigation into MPs’ expenses last year?”

Um, better, clearly?

The issue is how much is newspaper access worth to different people. If you paid one pound per day each for The Times, Guardian, Telegraph, FT, Independant and Mail that comes to over 2 grand a year. Maybe there are some people who would pay that (probably politicians claiming them on expenses) but not many normal people.

Now, in the short term, they probably can make more money charging to a few rather than giving it free to the many. The problem is their value to news sources is to get news out to the a wide audience. Politicians only give stories to newspapers because a lot of people read them. If they cut their readership then they get less stories, so get less readers. It is a downwards spiral that leads to extinction.

People dont pay for ITV or Channel 4. They use a free model, paid for by advertising. The problem for newspapers on the internet is that everybody else is chasing that same advertising money.

A better way might be some sort of pooled news aggregator. All news organisations give stories to a single paid site and money is paid out to newspapers based on the number of readers per story. I might pay a couple of pounds a month for that, but still not one pound/day for it.

I agree wholeheartedly Tom. I also think the principle should be applied to state benefits. Why should people get them for nothing? NuLabour took the principle of giving stuff away to a whole new level. I don’t think the mindset is that much different.

That’s also why I don’t like tax free allowances. I think the principle should be that everyone contributes something.

I will say Yes, with a caveat

All media must state its political affiliations, and where neutral must be seen to be so

That would save us the licence fee for the BBC

As I also know that you too like Dr Who I think you might like this interpretation:

http://pu-sama.deviantart.com/#/d2pdzcc

I have to say, I blame google for people expecting it to be free, and blogs will become the new “news outlets” with people looking until they find one that is reliable, and has a proven track record.

I think I’ll carry on reading the BBC news. If I had to pay no matter what, I would probably go back to watching the news on tv and getting a paper!