I do not agree with James Murdoch and i think that BBC should be allowed to provide free news services as they are a PSB which stands for Public Service Broadcaster. By charging readers to view their news sites, they do not follow with their category of being a public service. However, charging readers to see online news maybe be useful to help fix the issue of people avoiding to pay the license fee.
Was Rupert Murdoch right to put his news content (The Times, The Sun) behind a paywall?
It may be very useful for Rupert Murdoch to put his content behind a paywall as they are some of the leading print newspapers, the sun being the leading tabloid. This shows that Rupert Murdoch has accumulated some loyal readers over the years and would be very likely to keep the majority of his audiences.Also as, Rupert Murdoch's news papers are right wing, that means that they support the conservative party meaning that many of their readers may even be members of the conservative party. If so, they can afford to pay to access news, meaning it would be very beneficial for Rupert Murdoch, financially.
Choose two comments from below the Times paywall article - one that argues in favour of the paywall and one that argues against. Copy a quote from each and explain which YOU agree with and why.
Against the paywall: All very well, but the Times has zero web presence. What's the point of existing in the 21st century without one?
I never hear or read anything from the newspaper, because nobody can share what it publishes.
For the paywall: Just a thought on that: Times gets £14.99 pm from 140,000 subscribers, making it considerably more than it made in online advertising.
I agree with the statement that agrees that the Times should be behind a paywall as it would be very beneficial for Rupert Murdoch as the comment states that by using a paywall, he will earn much more than from advertisements alone.
Why do you think the Evening Standard has bucked the trend and increased circulation and profit in the last two years?
The evening standard may have profited in the last two years as more and more bes institutions are choosing to present their content online. With this, the evening standard's competition has decreased, allowing it to become more popular in print form. Also, their online news content is also very successful.
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.
In my opinion, I believe that the newspaper industry is extremely relevant to everyone. Despite the online news sites gaining a lot of recognition and praise, newspapers still have an audience that rely on newspapers to find out about current affairs. Those who are part of the digital divide has either extremely minimal access to technology or in some cases, none at all. This means that the newspaper may act as their sole source of news and that for their sake, newpapers cannot die down. Also for elderly audiences, a newspaper may be more convenient and easier for them in comparison to using technology. Therefore, they are also a key audience that newspapers cater to. It can be considered that over time, technology will further develop and provide those who are part of the social divide to access internet. Also, the people who grew up with technology would be very likely to use it in their elderly age. However, when that time comes, there may be a new way to access news and accessing it on line may seem like a dieing down form of media, like the newspapers. To summarise, newspapers will eventually die down, similarly to other forms of media but it will not die down in the near future.
No comments:
Post a Comment