Cartoon for September 17
Newspapers are in trouble for a variety of reasons, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that the decision to give away their content for free on the Web has hastened their demise.
Click on the cartoon to see it larger.
Newspapers are in trouble for a variety of reasons, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that the decision to give away their content for free on the Web has hastened their demise.
Click on the cartoon to see it larger.
posted by Ted Rall at
9:21 AM
16 Comments:
There's a similar debate going on in the cartooning community, where some cartoonists are outraged at webcartoonists for giving away their cartoons.
I think somebody needs to send a copy of this cartoon to every newspaper in the country.
nice props to idiocracy
good cartoon. Good point.
The internet generation does think they are entitled to free news, music, cartoons, etc. without considering those people need to make money.
I am not sure what I think yet about the efficacy of one media media over another media media.
Just saw a commercial on how if California switched to energy-efficient lights, it would be like taking 400,000 cars off the road. That is pretty weak considering there are 8 million cars in LA alone. Much of what passes for progress is a shell game.
One of the points of the net was to lower the need for paper. Of course, computers and the net have lead to an increase in the consumtion of paper as people print out directions, and law students print out whole cases from Findlaw.com. Internet use is also eating more power than ever.
I love the Weekly papers in LA and the Valley. But as Ted has pointed out before, Craigslist will silence them eventually.
The elimination of paper costs, printing press operations, and a distribution network can help a company recoup hundreds of thousands of dollars. It will save trees, reduce the use of lead-laden ink, and preclude the need for recycling.
Newspapers may indeed be in trouble, but it's a problem that can be addressed. Subscription-based access for premium content is one possibility. Another is delivery of targeted advertising.
Publishers and editors complicit in the whitewash of real news have brought this upon themselves. Why bother reading the news when the top story is about Britney's failed comeback with spray-painted abs? Almost 80,000 confirmed deaths of innocent bystanders in Iraq get no attention (with the Lancet count, increase it by a factor of 10x).
jimbo, those subsciption models haven't had much success. Look at the Times.
And daily newspapers aren't leading with news about Britney's abs. Those are front page stories on Drudge and Huffington Post. Maybe in the NY Post, but no respectable dailies do that.
Hi Matt,
Perhaps I made the Britney comparison too sweeping, but my "respected daily" does not address the issues as they warrant. Sports are well-covered though.
As for free content online, it gets widely read. What isn't widely read, doesn't widely influence.
A few months ago a couple hawkers from the New York Times were at the Big Apple Comics convention, trying to lure congoers into subscribing by offering "free" Yankees or Mets tickets, hats and shirts. Listening to them spout the fine print was very sad. They grew increasingly loud and frustrated, though I probably didn't help by pointing out that since the Times has no comics, a comic convention wasn't the wisest venue to attend.
The successful webcomic models sell bound collections, and related hats and shirts.
The Times has to stop giving away free hats and shirts.
"It will save trees, reduce the use of lead-laden ink, and preclude the need for recycling."
I don't know about newspapers, but on the whole, the internet has increased paper usage.
There is not a doubt in my mind that the internet and print publications are two VERY different animals that should not be seen as interchangeable, or even comparable to any large extent.
On one hand papers have failed us on some very important issues, on the other hand the internet is not nearly as reliable as paper especially in lieu of corporations seeking to subdue net neutrality. Further, I think that the lameness of print news of late is due in part to desperation brought on by decreasing sales. If we let nature take its course, those seeking to control all information will be in a much better position to do so.
Those of us who seek information are in the minority. Taking papers off of table tops, streets and news stands will be a final nail in the coffin of unsexy info.
Many Gen Y-ers cannot comprehend that any info would be missing from the net. It is going to be easy to charge alot more for information once they have eliminated the possibility for you to pick up someone's discarded Times from a coffee shop table.
I think the news and the entertainment industry should die. They are lousy pieces of garbage that are out of touch with the public groupthink they try weakly to control. Case in point, another prominent Republican was recently busted in a sting, yet the "Liberal" media didn't report his party affiliation. http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/14132485/detail.html ohn David R. Atchison, tried to arrainge a hookup for full penetrative sex with a FIVE year old girl. He is a member of the Department of Justice in Florida and a Registered Republican. But look at Armchair Subversive dot org. LOTS of Gropy Old Perverts. Enough to give the Catholic Church a run for it's lawsuit besiged collection plate money.
Maybe popular news is failing because the lazy people who want to feel like they know what's going on are turning to two places; in depth coverage produced by academic journals or high-end periodicals like The Atlantic, or they're just tuning out together.
Ted, do you think this is yet another example of how we're losing the middle class? A small percentage leap up or cling to the fantasy while the rest plummet?
Dave
More on the NY Times move to free content.
I think newspapers will probably be safe until the majority of people are willing to
watch in a few years apple with probably sell subscriptions of digital newspapers on itunes that you can download to your ipod. I know that subscription services for the New York Times may not work but if Steve Jobs can convince people to pay for music videos he can convince people to download newspapers.
Do I expect to get my news for free? No. Even if the price of the article I'm reading online didn't come directly out of my personal finances, I'm still seeing a page that is plastered with advertisements (the intrusiveness of which depends on the site). It's the same way with print newspapers: the majority of their funding comes from selling ads - that fifty cents I plop into a news box each morning helps a little bit, but not by much.
I see the internet becoming much like commercial radio: give them "free" content but make sure that all of the companies who make that page view possible get their word in full-throttle. So, all we're left to worry about is which corporate master is going to be pulling the puppet strings.
OK. Which is really more important: the message or the means? I find (almost) everything everybody contributes to this site interesting and informative - maybe even empowering. How much hypy commerce do you see going on here? Even with the unobtrusive presence of Ted's t-shirt market, this works for me. Hope Ted's cartoon income keeps him muuddling through despite the drain of maintaining this useful forum.
Thanks.
chris, I understand the wide distribution thing, but wouldn't it be better if a particular piece of info was being reported by many publications rather than a few?
The real problem is that the stories have ratings in the first place. Last night a bunch of busines men looked at yesterdays numbers and decided we all want to see more OJ news. Presto. Neocons killed the troops, and the free market erased their memory.Truth should not be decided upon what is marketable. We don't have a state sponsored media. We have a corporate sponsored media.
Post a Comment
<< Home