internet 
|
|
Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 11:37:20 AM EST
|
|
New Jersey's future hangs in the balance as a controversial experiment looms, and no I'm not talking about the new Christie Administration or the federal health care bill. I'm talking about New Jersey journalism, which has faces the collapse of newspapers. We're uniquely dependent on our newspapers, because our TV and radio stations are based in other states and frankly don't care about us at all.
As everyone should know, the newspaper business is really an advertising business, and the economic collapse, competition from online ads, and the loss of readers to the internet have crushed the poorly run, debt-ridden publishers. Your subscriptions to the newspapers (if you still have one) really pay for the physical printing of the paper, it's the ads that bring in the money. Blogger Newsosaur recently posted an analysis of how long papers can continue printing and there are scenarios where the death of physical papers is only a decade away. Even an internet triumpalist like me has to worry who will report on New Jersey news when very few people if any can make a living at it.
We've discussed before that newspaper publishers had a big meeting last year where they plotted to charge their internet readers. You've probably noticed, though, that no one followed through in our area. That's changing soon as the New York Times says it will begin charging in 2011:
Starting in early 2011, visitors to NYTimes.com will get a certain number of articles free every month before being asked to pay a flat fee for unlimited access. Subscribers to the newspaper's print edition will receive full access to the site.
We'll see what happens. If you think this is obviously a good decision, I direct you to this study of how it's worked out elsewhere:
A puny 2.4% of print subscribers is the average number of people paying for online content at the handful of daily newspapers that have been bold enough to erect pay walls, according to a new survey.
If you lose more in web advertising than you gain in subscriptions, it's hard to see what publishers have gained. But the sad reality is that web ads don't bring in enough to run newspapers as we have known them. New Jersey needs someone to solve the problem, so I'll be watching the Times experiment with great interest.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Mon May 18, 2009 at 03:01:33 PM EDT
|
Just last night I was talking to someone who works for the New York Times and he was saying he thinks newspapers have to move to paid Internet content. I'm skeptical, especially since the New York Observer quotes the NYT executive editor:
He said the site presently makes "a lot, a lot of money" from digital advertising-though he wouldn't specify how much-and that executives at the paper believe it is "substantially more" than The Wall Street Journal currently makes on a subscription-based pay model.
Obviously that's why the previous NYT effort failed, they make more without charging readers. Sadly, that is still not anywhere near as much as they used to make from print advertising. Here's the latest from the Wall Street Journal on our Star-Ledger:
Sunday circulation, often seen as the best indicator of a newspaper's health, fell faster than it did during the week. The Houston Chronicle's Sunday circulation declined 15.7%, followed by the Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J., and the Philadelphia Inquirer, where Sunday circulation declined 14.7% and 13.8%, respectively.
The article also notes weekday declines for the New York Times, New York Daily News, and the New York Post.
On the other hand, Editor and Publisher says nj.com (i.e., the Star-Ledger) has an online increase of 106% from last year. It had a unique audience of 2.6 million in April. That's pretty good news.
I actually think atrios is right that an alliance with local TV may be the future. The problem is that that solution doesn't work for New Jersey because we don't have our own TV stations and the Philly/New York stations are horrible at covering New Jersey.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 02:00:56 AM EST
|
|
Congratulations go out to John Farmer, who has been named as the new editorial page editor at the Star-Ledger. I've read Farmer's columns as long as I've been in Jersey, and I generally like the writing, even when I disagree with the thrust of it. I really don't like the thrust of his Q&A session with Kelly Heyboer.
Particularly, I don't like this answer to whether or not the newspaper industry can remain relevant: Well, I hope they're very wrong. I think a very strong case can be made for newspapers and the public need of them. The problem with information on the internet is that it is unvetted, unedited, it's raw data in half the cases. As it was described by one executive, it can be "a cesspool."
The difference is, what appears in newspapers, in both the news and editorial sections, has been researched, carefully edited, usually through more than one hand. It's dicey proposition and with all of that we still make mistakes. But we're a hell of a lot better than the internet.
Yeah, so much better than half of the newsroom just got cutback. And, as for that "carefully edited" line - care to explain the rash of verified plagiarism at the New York Times?
More than anything, the quote illustrates that Farmer doesn't understand the internet at all. Make the jump, please.
|
|
There's More...
:: (3
Comments, 608 words in story)
|
|
|
|
Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:08:36 PM EDT
|
|
Promoted from the diaries - with a week to go til Netroots Nation it's looking like New Jersey won't have any candidates in attendance, which makes me sad - a real missed opportunity. But, it's good to see John Adler reaching out to the netroots and recognizing the importance of net neutrality. That makes me happy. - JG
Senator John Adler is running for Congress in NJ-3 I want to ensure the free exchange of information and ideas via the Open Internet. That's why I will work to preserve Network Neutrality if I'm elected to Congress. Since this link just went live, it seemed appropriate to give New Jersey's Netroots community the first peek.
From my campaign website: Currently, most residents in New Jersey's 3rd Congressional district have access to only one or two Internet Broadband Providers. This relative lack of choice raises the possibility that Broadband Providers can slap a toll on content (what gets sent on the Net) and service (how fast.) This would lead to a multi-tiered Network where some Websites enjoy premium access speeds to their customers. Websites that are unwilling or unable to pay the toll would be relegated to the proverbial "slow lane."
John Adler believes that this inequitable arrangement would threaten the dynamism on the Internet. John strongly supports Network Neutrality and the innovation and openness that stem from it. In fact, a primary reason the Internet and the World Wide Web have proven so dynamic is the inherent openness and egalitarianism of the Network.
John Adler believes that only by preserving Network Neutrality; ensuring a diversity of media ownership; and bridging the Digital Divide will the Internet thrive as a hub of innovation and free speech in NJ-3 and beyond.
|
|
Discuss
:: (3
Comments)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:52:17 PM EDT
|
|
Cross-Posted from ShapTalk.com:
In an October 25, 2006 Internet broadcast following the New Jersey Supreme Court?s decision to allow gay couples to enter into civil unions, Hal Turner, former Congressional candidate for the 13th Congressional District, told his audience: "I fully expect now that I gave out the home addresses and phone numbers of the New Jersey Supreme Court that I will have the New Jersey State Police here tomorrow again. Well, I'm not going to shut up. I am not going to stop putting these ideas in people's heads because violence solves everything. And if some very angry people were to go down to some of those judges' houses and tune them up, oh sure, they might get thrown in jail, but that would send a shockwave to the rest of those (expletive) in black robes that they can be gotten to." Mr. Turner did not stop there. He later mused that in the time it would take to have the police respond to a violent attack. ?How many times you think you can bash someone in the head with a sledgehammer in two or three minutes?? he asked.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 296 words in story)
|
|
|
|
Fri May 12, 2006 at 06:56:16 AM EDT
|
(I approved the ad because it's important to have this dialog. This fake grassroots-looking site is the work of Ed Whitacre (CEO of AT&T), the person paying Mike McCurry and the rest of the gang trying to wreck the internet. Due to pressure from the big telcos, the FCC changed long-standing net neutrality principles 9 months ago, with a 12 month moratorium on implementation of the rules. If the people running this ad get what they want, in 3 months, the internet as we know it is over. But don't take my word for it - Ask a Ninja explains it much better. And for more information on this ad campaign, read this. - promoted by jmelli)
Take a look at the ad on the bottom right of this page. It was probably conceived by telecom lobbyist/ pretend activist Mike McCurry. (McCurry is a former press secretary for Bill Clinton.)
What if back in the early 20th century, paving and construction companies were given control of the roads instead of the government? The argument was that we had roads because of them and that they won't be able to develop improvements like traffic lights if we don't give them "freedom"? They said, "why should trucking and bus companies get to make a profit from our roads?" The trucking and bus companies fought this and the paving and construction companies would say, "this is unfair, why should the shipping industry make money from our roads."
They would have paid off a formerly respected political operative to form a lobbying firm "Hands Off Our Roads"
PS If you want to help me make an ad for this website defending government preservation of internet freedom email me at jennypenny at crumiller dot com.
|
|
Discuss
:: (3
Comments)
|
|
|
|
|
| Featured Stories |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
