Build The Wall analysis

The article, Build The Wall, is available here on the Columbia Journalism Review

Summarise each section in one sentence:

Section 1 (To all of the bystanders reading this…)

Simon states that news content should be paid for (on-line too), as millions are spent creating it, value news going behind a pay-wall is apparent to destroy, since it'll bring lifesaving revenues for institutions currently losing money.

Section 2 (Truth is, a halting movement toward...) 

Certain newspapers, such as the Washington Post require their readership to pay, and their reach is much wider now (10 million web visits/month), also stresses readers who require a specific source of news, will stick to it - even if that means paying for it - especially because Americans started paying for cable in a similar way. The full potential of professional journalism isn't yet reached since people aren't paid ''to do such''.

Section 3 (Beyond Mr. Sulzberger and Ms. Weymouth…)

The value of free web news was to entice a younger audience, so they get hooked and then start paying for news. If online subscriptions were much less than news delivery rates, it'll still be a 'profitable revenue stream'. Readers would be lost, but even 10% of the current members (Baltimore Sun) would represent $2.5m a year, if they pay just $10 (half the price of delivery)


Section 4 (For the industry, it is later than it should be…) 

The Times & W,Post going behind the paywall will allow good revenue,and high profits for news (as they are popular) this means they'll make news better, everything - culture, music, finance in news ect can be made to quality and can be included online, with less of the price and it not being on paper - no printing and circulation costs. In addition, money will be made by online adverts too, higher readership will result in higher advert rate.


Summarise David Simon’s overall argument in 250 words:

Simon states that news content should be paid for (on-line too), as millions are spent creating it, value news going behind a pay-wall is apparent to destroy, since it'll bring lifesaving revenues for institutions currently losing money. Certain newspapers, such as the Washington Post require their readership to pay, and their reach is much wider now (10 million web visits/month), also stresses readers who require a specific source of news, will stick to it - even if that means paying for it - especially because Americans started paying for cable in a similar way. The full potential of professional journalism isn't yet reached since people aren't paid ''to do such''. The value of free web news was to entice a younger audience, so they get hooked and then start paying for news. If online subscriptions were much less than news delivery rates, it'll still be a 'profitable revenue stream'. Readers would be lost, but even 10% of the current members (Baltimore Sun) would represent $2.5m a year, if they pay just $10 (half the price of delivery). News will be better, and more inclusive including culture, music, finance in news ect. It can be made to quality and can be included online, with less of the price and it not being on paper - no printing and circulation costs. In addition, money will be made by online adverts too; higher readership will result in higher advert rate. David highly recommends going behind a paywall, for leading newspapers. 

Choose three comments from below the article, copy them in to your blogpost and explain whether they agree or disagree with David Simon’s argument:

1. I understand the frustration, and there is a lot in this piece, but subscription is not the way to go. What the Times and the Post report is not inherently valuable, value is relative and subjective. News is free and a portion of the times is simply news. Journalism - Business, Arts, Books, Movies, Travel, Sports, etc, - is not free, but its value is hard to pinpoint making a site wide subscription fallacious.
Lionel Barber, Editor, FT, indicated at a media even last night that the FT is seeing growing revenue from frequency model pricing, meaning readers get a certain number of articles free and then must begin to pay. This strategy is not as granular as what many people espousing micro payments are pushing for, but its got its head in the right place. 

Your argument that for example, The Baltimore Sun push readers online by charging more for the physical newspaper and its delivery, either ignores or misses that strength of the internet - profits from fragmentation. I can go to iTunes and buy a variety of genres of music in the smallest possible form - a song - and get a discount for buying in bulk - an album. Journalism can work in the same way. I can buy one technology article or I can buy the whole section for the day or the week at a discount.

Now is not the time for ultimatums and traditional thinking. There is a solution that makes people pay, we both agree that needs to happen. Let's do it in a way that will make people really love and appreciate journalism again instead of bullying them into subscriptions and turning off a new generation of Americans to the pleasure of reading the Times Sunday Arts section.
{#2 Posted by Aankit on Thu 16 Jul 2009 at 12:15 PM}

 - disagree with Simon's argument

2. 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.
{#9 Posted by Lawrence Turner on Fri 17 Jul 2009 at 11:55 AM}

- Disagree, since this person is used to  news being free, thus won't pay for it.

3. 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.
{#18 Posted by Just Thinking on Sat 18 2009 at 03:33 PM}

 - Disagree, because they are saying we are already (indirectly) paying for news, to some extent since the internet is paid for - and so is cable.

What is your own opinion? Do you agree that newspapers need to put on-line content behind a pay-wall in order for the journalism industry to survive? Would you be willing to pay for news online? 

I believe that some newspapers, that are most popular, e.g. New York Times - should go behind the pay-wall to some extent. This should be really cheap online subscription. This will mean that many viewers will be lost, but at least the news company will be able to survive, pay their staff good money, so they are motivated and can reach full potential of journalism, rather than waffling. I personally won't be willing to pay for online news, purely because Social Media such as Twitter have loads of Citizen Journalism, and the most important stories usually make the 'Trends'. This brings me on to another issue, since UGC and CJ, is only growing - meaning less people may rely on News channels/institutes to receive news, and go to 'secondary sources'. These secondary source, i.e.. the public, may actually have more information than journalists themselves, for example the London  Riots, were thousands of pictures were being posted on Twitter, to update their 'followers'. This is a prime reason why News may been seen as something that SHOULD be free, rather than it being free - and having to pay for it all of a sudden.