The effects of online technology

Newspaper versus online technology

1) Agree.disagree with Rupert Murdoch's decision?:

I don't agree with Murdoch's decision because, BBC have had a public remit of being loyal and basing their content for the viewers best interest. There public remit is to, educate, entertain and inform. This is the prime reason why the BBC first started, it was for the best interest of their viewers. And it means that, audience's deserve to know about the world around them for free regardless the platform. I do see it from Murdoch's perspective, that news corporations that started this entire empire of allowing society knowing things about the other side of the world, is something that should be available as it has helped many people and saved millions of lives. Without news corporations, corrupt people and crisis in other countries would be kept national and no-one would know. However, BBC are ensuring they help their audience in every way possible, and to change their entire routine all of a sudden, will be going against the foundations from which their business first started.

2) The Times Paywall article:

I do believe it is a good idea for Murdoch to place his online news papers under a paywall because it will help journalism and news companies to continue to produce content and break news stories that benefit society. Even though in the previous question, I believe that putting news for free is a good thing, its solely for BBC only. I believe, that newspaper companies who want to tackle free online news sites, they should go under a paywall as it would help to pay for journalists and I believe they are a key factor towards society and contribute a lot. They are the ones who go out to challenge people's ideologies and find the hidden truth behind iconic people. For example, a group on journalists went under-cover and found evidence against the Sam Allardyce corruption values and how he planned to rig the Fifa system. If it wasn't for people paying for news, this news wouldn't have broke and peoples 'iconic champion' would be a corrupt man who would be doing illegal activities without anybody (including the fans) knowing.

3) Two comments analysis:

• "It is so ridiculous if these mainstream newspapers believe that they can "force readership of fee-based news. One can get the same "news" for free almost anywhere on the internet. I'd take a hint from the alternative free weeklies that survive just off their local advertising. I don't think anyone would read them otherwise. These papers are full of paid advertising. The fee model will never work"             -Jerry Harris

I do agree with the following statement made by Harris, because 'free' news online isn't going to benefit the industry in the long-run it won't generate a lot of revenue. The only reason why current newspaper are still surviving is because of the vast advertisement they receive. This isn't enough to keep the industry on their feet, especially if all their hard-work and content is out on the web for free.

• "The company now has lifetime value and renewable revenue attached to its 
  digital customers where previously it had none' – could this BTW is an analogy for the Labour Party, re shifting from the block vote to individual membership?"

I don't agree with this comment. This is because the commentor believes that news should be free and that, paying for them is an absurd decision. She states that to this day, there isn't anything that the newspaper industry is suffering from and that they have a life time of revenue when this isn't the case.

4) Why has the "Evening Standard" had such an increase in revenue during the past 2 years?:

The reason why the Evening Standard has gained so much in revenue during the past 2 years is because of the loyalty their customers have towards the paper. They would rather pay for their news than buy/try out another newspaper. The same applies for clothing brands. A Nike trainer charges £200, a loyal customer will still buy the trainer due to their loyalty to the brand. This is the same thing for newspapers. Evening Standard may share ideologies and values that their readers have, and that is something readers can't find in other newspapers. Therefore, for charging for their paper, there audience will not hesitate to pay for the paper.

5) Is there any hope for the newspaper industry or will it eventually die out? Provide a detailed response to this question explaining and justifying your opinion.

With broadcasters such as the BBC still continuing to provide audiences with free news, it will eventually lead to big name news corporations to die out. I don't think BBC will be influenced by the impact free news has had on other news corporations as they have an audience to provide for. The BBC's main priority is their audience and they get revenue from the license fee. I do think, that they may not all die out. This is because if the news corporations successfully pull of a pay-wall, any journalism stories that are broken out should be given only to their subscribers. This will force people to pay for the news as they will come to realise the importance of paying for news.