Paying for News is No Novel Idea

The Arguments

Walter Isaacson is advocating the idea that news isn’t free to produce or write on paper and therefore it shouldn’t be on the web either. With journalism in its current state, he suggests that perhaps online newspaper readers should be charged a small fee, or a micropayment, to read what they would normally be reading on a hard copy. Isaacson argues that it’s worked for other companies, such as iTunes so there should be no reason why it shouldn’t work for online newspapers as well.

In rebuttal, Michael Kinsley points out that more often than not, news on the web is free and that by creating a charge you would be alienating readers and furthermore, not even making the profit needed to stay in business. He argues that with the internet, competition has greatly increased because now it’s quicker easier and less expensive to express your views than it was in the past. With paper out of the equation, anything goes.

My Argument

So how do I feel about this issue? I have to lean more towards Isaacson’s way of thinking. Traditionally, print news has cost readers some money, and usually not that much. With the industry making the switch over to the web, why shouldn’t it still cost something? Steven Brill says this “Culture of Free” is “suicide.”Yes, there will be competition, but if all the major newspapers decide as a group to charge a small subscription fee or micropayment per issue, there won’t be much. Geneva Overholser, the Director of the Annenberg School for Journalism also argues that papers need to team up and look to each other for guidance. I contend that citizen reporting cannot possibly keep up with a news staff (or whatever’s left of said news staff) of a professional newspaper such as the New York Times or the Washington Post. Yes… times are changing, but there are still standards for news content.

That being said, I think that micropayments can work to an extent.

Number one, it will greatly reduce costs for major papers by allowing them to cut back on printing expenses. If you have a larger audience on the web, you won’t need to print as many papers, and as Kinsley said, newspapers actually bite the bullet for some of their printing costs. This doesn’t mean that papers won’t still print. They will. There are still loyal readers out there who either 1) just love that newspaper smell and the look and feel of their blackened inky fingers after they’ve shuffled leisurely through the gray lady or 2) as in the case of my father, don’t know how to use the “damned internets.”

So print isn’t dead, and it will never completely die (I don’t think). It’s just being phased out in a way that could actually work out for the better. It’ll save trees and cut some costs for newspapers.

Number 2, I agree with Isaacson about the iTunes model. Somehow, even though there is free music out there, Apple is able to sell music and a lot of it. I would almost parallel this to online news. Sure, you can go get similar music for free from Lime Wire, but it’s almost guaranteed to be of lower quality and unorganized. Same goes for the news. For those who refuse to pay, there will be news out there, but it’s most likely going to be of a lesser quality. Don’t get me wrong. Citizen journalism is great, but there’s something to be said for the fact that journalism has remained a profession for so long. That means there’s a standard… a public status quo. People want news, but they also want it reported well and I think it’s probably awfully tough to compete with the trained and experienced writers who staff the current newspapers. Author Andrew Keen also says that there is a need for trained professional journalists.

Lastly, this doesn’t mean that everything needs to cost money on the web, probably my only complaint in Isaacson’s argument (other than his pricing ideas, which I will address later). What was professional in a print world should remain professional in a digital world. You paid for CD’s, you can pay for digital music. You paid for DVD’s, you can pay for digital movies. You paid for books, magazines, etc. etc. The list goes on. I think it’s reasonable to ask that you pay for your news online that you would have had to pay for in print. This isn’t to say that I think all news should cost. I think television news should remain free, because it was free before. But newspapers are different. They’ve traditionally charged a small subscription fee. They should probably continue to do so, if they have any hope or desire to survive.

Two Bucks a Month is Not Enough

Now to pricing. I think Isaacson was setting the bar a little low for an annual subscription to the New York Times. I don’t think it should be the same as a current subscription to the NYT in print, because there won’t printing or delivery costs. Again, like iTunes. I would normally pay 13 or 14 dollars for a CD, but on iTunes it’s several dollars cheaper because there are no material costs. So how much should a subscription be? I don’t know, but certainly not 2 dollars per month. I think that’s entirely too low. There should be options for subscriptions. You can by one issue for X amount. You can buy a monthly subscription for Y amount and you can by an annual subscription for Z amount.

Only time will tell I suppose, but for now, I’m still glad I’m a broadcast major. Good luck to all you printies. I’m rootin’ for ya.

~Brittany