Who wants to pay for something that is FREE?

I’ve heard plenty about the problems newspapers are facing these days.  Readers of print editions are becoming a scarcity continuing to make the Internet an enemy.  Newspapers decided to offer their product online for no-charge and now they are paying the price.  They thought they would make their money from advertising, but the plan fell through and continues to worsen in our weakening economy.  As newspapers continue to cutback on coverage and employees, the permanent termination of many print publications looms on the horizon.  What will newspapers do?  The question continues to be asked but few have been able to come up with feasible solutions. 

First there is the opinion of Walter Isaacson.  Isaacson, in his article “How to Save Your Newspaper” from TIME, writes that the solution is for the newspaper industry is micropayments.  The micrpayment plan would charge online readers small amounts each time they come across a story they want to read (something like a nickel or a dime per story).  Or, readers could have the option of paying a monthly rate to get all their news.  Isaacson believes this model could see success due to the overwhelming success of iTunes.  Despite having the option to download thousands of songs for free (illegally) on the internet, many people seem to be fine with paying $0.99 cents for a song.  For such small fees, Isaacson believes only a minimal percentage of people who read online news would abandon the medium if there were a small fee involved.  And as a result of the fee, Isaacson thinks it would result in more quality journalism saying, “Charging for content forces discipline on journalists: they must produce things that people actually value.”

Michael Kinsley sees getting readers to pay for their online journalism as nothing more than a dream.  In Kinsley’s New York Times opinion article entitled “You Can’t Sell News by the Slice,” he says that the biggest problem facing newspapers in the online world is the direct competition with all other papers.  Before the Internet each town’s newspaper received its share of success because it was the main source of news in that town.  Now, readers can read any newspaper they choose from all over the world.  If a system of micropayments were in place, it is probable that the majority of major readers will dish out their money to newspapers based on their size and reputation, not necessarily location. 

Kinsey also doesn’t see the micropayment option as a viable way to make money, making the point that if all of the current New York Times subscribers cancelled their print editions and went solely to the web, the paper would lose money because they could not charge similar fees since many of the subscribers are mostly paying for the paper. 

The biggest problem I see with an institution of a micropayment system is that there isn’t one now.  While I don’t think readers would have initially objected to paying small fees for their news, I don’t see many accepting a new system easily after all the news on the internet has been free for so long.  I do believe that it was a mistake on the part of the journalism industry to offer so much news for free online.  Now, the industry is in trouble and newspaper employees are being laid off left and right.  As an aspiring journalist, I truly hope that online media can find a way to make money so that there would be more secure jobs available for someone trying to break into the business like myself.  But the only part of me that truly believes that, is the side that wants to enter into a lucrative business with the chance at being successful.  As a consumer of online media, I to would be upset if I could no longer get whatever news I wanted, whenever I wanted.  Not that I wouldn’t mind paying small amounts for articles here and there, but the biggest problem would be deciding which to pay for.  One of the luxuries of the internet is that you can read articles from so many different newspapers.  That luxury would be taken in a micropayment system unless readers were willing make quite a dent in their bank accounts for online newspapers. 

And my biggest concern with the system is one shared by Susan Mernit in one of her Huffington Post blog posts.  “Could the famously contentious media industry agree to all install metered gates on their web sites, forsaking bits of their ad revenue as they try to switch consumers to micro-paid content?”  If one site begins to charge for its content then all must begin do the same if it is to succeed.  If the LA Times were to begin using a micropayment system and nobody else followed, why would anybody choose to continue to read the newspaper when there are other respectable newspapers not charging anything.  And with so many people getting their news from blogs and other smaller mediums on the internet, there would still be so many free options for news that I just don’t see enough people seeing spending the money just to read a newspaper online. 

Micropayments: at best a band-aid

The business of journalism

I don’t pretend to know much about the business behind journalism. I know the state that the industry is in, as well as some of the reasons why it is that why, but not much beyond that. I can’t reel off all of the theories of how to save some newspapers from their seemingly impending dooms.

But I do think that I would make a pretty good case study as an absorber of news content, both online and in print. I have my old school print ties that defy my age group (I still read the hard copy of Washington Post whenever I go home and enjoy picking up a paper when readily available), but like most others I get most of my content online. I read several news sites and peruse the available content, though I also pick and choose based on several of my interests. Given my ties to news in its various forms, I asked myself how I would react if micropayments suddenly became the widespread trend within the online side of journalism.

Micropayments: a gradual move in the right direction?

Despite having my natural and selfish objections to having to pay for content that was once free, I think that I would be alright with the micropayment system, especially given my sympathy for struggling journalists. The utopian view of a micropayment world that Walter Isaacson presents in his “Time” article sounds especially appealing. I found the iTunes comparison to be especially attractive. The interface and usage is simple, and the product is able to survive despite competing with a host of other mediums that allow for free content of a highly desirable product. It also was developed after these avenues for free content became available, showing that micropayments can exist in a post content-for-free culture. Additionally, a healthy culture for micropayments would mean that the industry would become less driven by advertising, something that I think would greatly aid the health of journalism, as the downfall of newspapers has largely coincided with an increased devotion to advertisers’ demands.

Professor William Baker of Columbia University voiced his support to the Los Angeles Times of moving toward Micropayments. “There’s a potential rainbow here,” he told the Times. “Normally no one would take this risk because it’s a scary jump. On the other hand, the economy is so terrible now that it may force some entities to try.”

...or maybe not.

I began thinking about the iTunes comparison, however, and it seems as though the example might fall through upon closer investigation. It seems that iTunes is more of an anomaly than a true model for success. As Isaacson mentioned, iTunes is seemingly the lone success story in a sea of micropayment failures. The interface and usage can be too complicated and the branding and product name can be too untrustworthy. iTunes also has the distinct advantage of having a more expansive library than seemingly any music network out there. Would most news providers be able to justify micropayments when free content will still be available other places? It seems like micropayments might be hard-pressed to make a transition to the news side of things.

I was equally if not more put off by micropayments as a longterm solution after reading Michael Kinsley’s op-ed piece in the New York Times. As much of an idealist as Isaacson was, Kinsley brings some much needed realism to the equation. He raises my key objection to the concept of micropayments, which is how can you pull off going back to a payment system for content that has been free for a while now? By having almost every available news media accessible for free, a Pandora’s box was opened, and now customers are going to balk at having to pay for something that was once free. Even though it’s not that much money, readers will still see it as a slap in the face of sorts. The money is also not to be taken lightly in these economic times.

Drop in a bucket

Kinsley also addressed my other key concern: are micropayments really a saving grace, or simply a band aid? He did a pretty good job of breaking down the figures and showing that micropayments would only be a drop in a bucket of a larger problem. While I’d like to see more experimenting done with micropayments, it’s hard to see them as a longterm fix for a larger problem. The issue of micropayments doesn’t address content and how it’s presented, something that has been key to journalism’s downfall. While a changing business climate is largely responsible for newspapers’ struggles, the issue of content can’t be ignored.

Micropayments: The Next Small Thing?

As a young journalist about to graduate from college and dive into the slightly unhinged state of this profession, it is difficult to imagine a future in which micropayments are the norm. The concept of paying a nickel per article or roughly $2 a month seems insignificant when we spend $4 on a latte at Starbucks weekly, but the underlying implications of a pay-to-play system between readers and news organizations is what concerns me most. If similar endeavors have failed in the past, why would they work now? And in a time of economic recession, will people even want to shell out these seemingly small amounts for content when there will surely be alternatives, as I imagine it impossible for every single publication to adopt this method? The system right now is definitely “broke” and it needs some fixing—but I’m not convinced that micropayments are a one-stop-shop solution to the problem.

How it Could Work
Walter Isaacson, former managing editor of TIME, tries to answer some of these questions in an article entitled, “How to Save Your Newspaper.” He believes micropayments are a viable option for the future, stating that since “news organizations are merrily giving away their news,” they should stop doing so and get users to pay for the journalism they produce and provide. He also points out that this is due to so many newspapers becoming more focused on their web components.

Though Isaacson admits to some examples in which this business model totally failed, he believes that because readership is higher than ever, readers could be inclined and willing to pay for content. He also points out that the technology necessary to make these micropayments is not too far away from being developed. With the advent of systems such as PayPal or iTunes, a “one-click system” would be so simple and user-friendly that it would make micropayments appealing to consumers, according to Isaacson.

It is important to note the distinction Isaacson makes between subscription and micropayments. He acknowledges that subscriptions are not as appealing to readers because they ultimately cost more, which is why he argues that readers who just want to pick and choose their news can do so with micropayments. Ultimately, Isaacson believes this kind of system could apply to all types of online media, from magazines and blogs to videos and even porn and that it would revolutionize the current system.

Why it Won’t Work
Michael Kinsley, founding editor of Slate Magazine and New York Times Op-Ed Contributor, makes a counterargument to Isaacson’s micropayment proposal in an article entitled, "You Can't Sell News By the Slice." His main problem with micropayments is that readers have never paid for their content before so it would definitely be a difficult first. Kinsley believes it would be impossible for every single publication to go the micropayment route, which means there will be inevitable competition. This competition also means that people will most likely go to the cheapest alternative—a publication that does not cost anything.

Beyond that hurdle, Kinsley also argues that charging $2 a month won’t resurrect or save the newspaper industry. It simply would not be enough to recover now sunk costs. Kinsley says that a few of the great papers (like the Washington Post and New York Times) will survive and that it will breed even more competition and disparity among those who charge and those who do not. Ultimately, he’s skeptical of the micropayment idea and does not see it as the end-all, be-all to the journalism’s industry’s current crisis.

My Two Cents
Like Kinsley, I too have my doubts when it comes to micropayments. Firstly, there are so many publications out there that I find it hard to believe that everyone will convert to this system. A part of me feels like some journalists would disagree with this in principle so much that they would start their own offshoot publications or blogs that would be free and attempt to provide the same high-quality journalism for free. My main problem with Isaacson is that he says “charging for content forces discipline on journalists: they must produce things that people actually value.” I believe journalists can (and currently are) producing things that people can value without having to pay for them. I do not think that by putting a nickel or dime price tag on a story that it gives it value.

Susan Merit of the Huffington Post is also admittedly skeptical. She says there are two major questions that need to be answered before entertaining the micropayments system: “1) Could the famously contentious media industry agree to all install metered gates on their web sites, forsaking bits of their ad revenue as they try to switch consumers to micro-paid content?2) Would users/readers actually want the established companies content enough to pay?” I have a hard time imagining how we will come up with the answers to these questions. Though I believe journalism does need some sort of solution to keep it thriving and surviving, I am not so sure that micropayments are our answer.

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

Micropayments: The Future of Newspapers?

In Walter Isaacson’s article entitled, “How to Save Your Newspaper,” he discusses the way to charge people for the newspaper articles they read online. This has been done before by websites such as the Los Angeles Times, and didn’t work, so they started letting readers view all their content for free. Isaacson has a problem with this, so he brought up a solution: micropayments. A micropayment is simply a system that easily allows someone to charge a small amount of money for something.

Isaacson acknowledges in his article that the Internet is filled with failed micropayment companies, and he says that a lot has been written about how these micropayments won’t work because of “bad tech or mental transaction costs.” He believes that these micropayments can and will work if instituted. One point he brings up is Steve Jobs getting music buyers to pay 99 cents for a song on Itunes. Moreover, the author states that if Jobs can get people to pay for music, newspapers can get people to pay for newspapers, as long as it is a process that could be done simply.

Under the system, Isaacson proposes that a newspaper could charge a measly amount such as a nickel or a dime for the day’s paper or $2 for a month’s worth of web access. Charging a small amount, such as two dollars, for a whole month might seem like a small amount to the general public, and at the same time would give newspapers a chance to make some money off of their internet content.

Now, the main point and the best point that Isaacson makes, which I will touch on more later, is the point that the content of Journalism would improve if people had to pay for it. Isaacson says that people who produce “really neat stuff” should get paid for it….but more importantly, “charging for content forces discipline on journalists: they must produce things that people actually value.”

After reading Isaacson’s article, a counterpoint was put out by Michael Kinsley. His article entitled, “You can’t sell news by the slice,” discusses how you can’t save newspapers by charging people to read their news online. He goes on to discuss how the old newspaper is long gone and that newspapers will survive, but most likely it will be a few major ones that take all of the readers. He states that the typical newspaper is “an anachronism,” going on to call it to an artifact.

The other major point that Kinsley makes is about the amount of money newspapers would make by charging people to read newspapers online instead of having an actual print edition of the paper. He says that if you charged $2 a month like Isaacson proposes, then the company would make about $25 million. This makes no sense to do, since the NY Times brought in $668 million in circulation last year.

I have my own opinion on these micropayments. I am going to dance on the fence because I agree with both points. I agree with Isaacson that this is a simple plan and would bring in revenue that the newspaper isn’t currently bringing in. However, I agree with Kinsley on the point about how much newspapers bring in. If a newspaper company were to sell the paper at a small price online, I would definitely keep the print edition as well, because papers cater to different age groups. Older people like to read their paper in print, while the younger generation is constantly online, so it likes to get its news online. Furthermore, if I needed to choose whether I liked the idea of micropayments, I would say that I do, because as an aspiring journalist, I believe that writers should get rewarded for their work, just like movie producers, writers, etc. deserve to make money off of DVD’s and their movies that get put online.

In Jakob Nielsen’s article entitled, “The Case for Micropayments,” he says that “users should be willing to pay, say, one cent per Web page in return for getting quality content and an optimal user experience with less intrusive ads.” Nielsen also brings up a great point when discussing the opponents have with the plan, in that users don’t want to be nickled and dimed. However, Nielsen argues that some sites aren’t having success with the micropayments because they are charging up to $1 per page. That price is obviously absurd, so a price of once cent per page is not too much to ask for.



In conclusion, micropayments have been proposed for a while and have not seemed to work the way that some wished it would, but if the newspaper business continues to decline and people continue to go online to get their news, it seems like micropayments will be the go-to option for newspapers in the near future.

Should People Have To Pay To Be Well Informed?

Micropayments has been on everyone’s mind since the newspaper industry is slowly dying. When newspapers hopped on to the internet bandwagon things started to change. More people chose to read the information online rather than pay for the subscription, which seems like a no brainer. Why pay when you can get it for free? When ad revenues from the website weren’t doing as well as they thought they would do, some people propose that the information come with a cost – micropayments.

What are micropayments?

Micropayments according to Michael Knisley from his article You Can’t Sell News by the Slice, “are systems that make it easy to pay small amounts of money. (Your subway card is an example.) You could pay a nickel to read an article, or a dime for a whole day’s newspaper.” This is a concept we are all familiar with from metro cards to iTunes. But we are not familiar with this concept when it comes to getting our news. News is something we have all become accustomed to as being free. We can watch it on the TV, listen to it on the radio, and read it on the internet.

Some Think Micropayments are the answer

Some people like Walter Isaacson author of Time’s article How to Save Your Newspaper think that micropayments are the solution to the dying newspaper industry. He argues that newspapers are getting more readers than ever before with the news on the internet, but subscription continues to go down because the information is being given for free. These people argue that the public has paid for its information in the past. People used to have to buy the newspaper to read about the information from the day. Now when people are forced to pay, what is all the fuss about? Isaacon also argues that because that the information is free, he doesn’t want to see content diminish. He states, “charging for content forces discipline on journalist.”

And some don’t…

Michael Kinsley, wrote a Op-Ed piece in The New York Times called You Can’t Sell News by the Slice, responding the the pro-micropayments movement. He states that the only reason we have paid for the news in the past (newspapers) was because we were paying for the paper that the content is printed on. The paper the news is printed on as well as ink costs the paper money. He argues that this would be the first time that readers would have to pay for the content of the paper. He also contends that the internet has increased newspaper competition because Americans can access all English speaking newspapers, which includes papers in different countries. America no longer has a monopoly on its newspaper industry.  Another problem with charging for the news is that news is only news because it is timely. Marshall W. Van Alstyen, associate professor in the Information Systems department at BU and research scholar at M.I.T wrote, “News is not like an iTunes song; it’s perishable. Today’s front page is tomorrow’s fish wrap, and we don’t need to replay it.”

What I think

I agree with Kinsley and especially Alstyen, he makes a very good point there is no value in purchasing news. It is a waste of money because it is not reusable. I think other people will be reluctant as well to pay for their news. People have become used to not paying, therefore they will find a way around it, if it is instated. Even though there is iTunes and it has a successful micropayment system, many people still find there way around the system. People get their music for free on programs like Limewire and Acquisition. I think we should be celebrating the fact that more people than ever have easy access to the news and are willing to read it. Making readers pay for stories will decrease the number of readers who look at the same story covered by a different newspaper. Alstyen said, “A reader benefits more from a second source than repetition from the first.” Therefore it would not be beneficial to have people buy one story that they would read over instead of getting a different perspective on it. Overall, our democracy is based on a well informed public. If micropayments decrease the number of people who have access to becoming informed it could be a detriment to our democracy. Micropayments for something that should be allowed to the people free of cost is ridiculous.

Micropaments might not save all, but writers should be compensated for their work. Who do you think pays them?

The Situation

It is not a secret that many newspapers around the country are running into financial problems. Layoffs, decreased circulation and cutting back from daily versions are only a few of the consequences that many organizations are feeling not only because of the recession, but because of the way Americans have taken up as their method of receiving the news— free online newspapers.

Since the newspapers began updating their own news sites, people across the country have been logging on and reading. A faster and more easily navigated version, online editions have been slowly—but surely—pulling subscribers away from the hard copy.
By doing so, readers are causes news organizations to lose money in subscriptions and advertisements.

The biggest advantage is that it is free. Anyone with a computer and a web provider is able to log on and read the daily news without paying for a subscription. Though some publications, like The New Yorker and The Chronicle for Higher Education, charge a small fee to enable readers to see online content, this is definitely not the norm.

By putting news on the web for people to read for free, news organizations are losing money from a decrease in hard-copy subscriptions and in advertisements.

While some people say that they will always prefer the smell of newsprint and the authenticity of holding a hard copy, and ill continue subscribing for as long as they can still read, many are making a permanent transition to online newspapers. It may seem as though his might just mean the end of paper copies of the news, the reality is that the money lost may kill its presentation online as well. The age of the paper may be on its way out.

Micropayment to the rescue

For Walter Isaacson, a former managing editor for TIME magazine and current CEO for the Aspen Institute, the solution to this problem is simple: micropayments.

In “How to Save your Newspaper,” his Feb. 5 article in TIME, Isaacson explained that though readership is up, the newspaper crisis has reached “meltdown proportions” because revenue come from advertisement, subscriptions and newsstand sales. With more people getting their news for free online than are buying copies, according to a Pew Research Center study, these numbers are going down.

To make matters worse, he says, the recession is causing the amount of what money the online version does make to decrease. Online advertisements — the life-blood of Web news — seriously declined during the end of 2008.

Isaacson claims that many people “piggyback” on online journalism, making money off of it. Internet providers charge money to log on and read free content, and search engines, portals and aggregators make money off of advertisements, he explained.

Another problem with online papers receiving revenue from advertisements is that journalists put out stories for advertisers, not for the reader. By charging for online content, the writer is forced to shift back to writing for the reader — to keep the reader engaged.

Isaacson cited online subscriptions as a way of supplementing revenue, but says this is not the best answer. Instead, he says that micropayment is the way to go. Micropayment lets newspapers, magazines, blogs and other online services charge a small amount of money for users to access content. For instance, an online newspaper might charge a reader five cents for an article or 10 cents for the day’s full edition.

Micropayment makes it quick and easy for users to “click and buy,” Isaacson says. He says that most people will have no problem paying a few cents for the day’s news.


Online content might not be so bad

Michael Kinsley, the founding editor of Slate magazine, disagreed with Isaacson in his Op-Ed response “You Can’t Sell News by the Slice,” but not on the grounds that micropayment is inherently bad.

Instead, Kinsley says that online news is not killing the newspaper, but is, in fact, helping company’s that put out papers. He explains that readers have never paid for content, but have paid for what the words are printed on. He says that newspapers actually lose money on the printed edition because of the cost of paper, ink and delivery. He claims that the reader is doing the newspapers a favor by reading content online.

In theory, Kinsley says if newspapers went exclusively online, they would cut down on enough distribution and publishing costs to make a profit. He also says that with many news organizations around the world printing English-language stories online, there is more competition and, thus, better content.

And, he says, even if online newspapers started charging for content, the amount they brought in would not come close to matching the amount brought in by circulation.


“Mental transaction costs”

Clay Shirky, who has written for the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, argues that micropayments cannot work. In his article “The Case About Micropayments,” Shirky cites a little thing called “mental transaction costs,” a process in the human psyche that has people evaluating “the energy required to decide whether something is worth buying or not regardless of price.”

He says that it doesn’t matter whether readers are being charged two cents or $200, they won’t be willing to pay any amount for some things.

Writers need to be compensated ... guess who pays them

Shirky does have a point when he says about some people having anxiety or down right stubbornness when it comes to paying for something you feel you should have to pay for. And Kinsely brings some interesting information to light about the real costs of the hard copy of a paper.

But ultimately, many people who support news organizations will be more than happy to pay a few cents in order to read a story. People can see the value in he journalist’s hard work behind each story. And while micropayments will go to the news organization and not directly to the writer, people must remember who pays the bills!

Micropayments: Unlikely, but possible

Isaacson

In Walter Isaacson’s piece How to Save Your Newspaper, he analyzed the declining state of newspapers. Isaacson states that, contrary to common belief, the problem doesn’t lie in the readership, because more people are reading news than ever. With an easier access to news on the Internet, more and more audiences, especially younger people, are reading up now. Isaacson said the problem lies in the fact that less and less people are paying for their news. Years before the Internet, people had to pay to read news. They would either pay at newsstands, in their subscriptions, or at the boxes on street sidewalks. That doesn’t even include where newspapers get the majority of their money: advertising.

However, with the rise of the Internet, news has become free to access and much of the print advertising has gone online. Although people still do subscribe and pick up newspapers from the streets, a huge chunk of the readership has moved entirely online. After all, why pay for yesterday’s news when one can get brand new news for free? Isaacson doesn’t believe newspapers can survive without generating revenue from some other source. He acknowledged the attempts of some newspapers to charge for online news editions, and how none have been very successful. While he admits that charging for news online is the only way to save a periodical, he believes the way it is done is what matters.

Isaacson’s solution to the problem is online micropayments. Micropayments are a way of receiving and gathering very small amounts of money or charge for a service that is used and accessed often and by a lot of people, hence adding up funds to equal a large amount. Isaacson believes setting up micropayments on online periodicals can keep them alive and earning revenue. He said they need to “…come up with an iTunes-easy method of micropayment…a one-click system with a really simple interface that will permit impulse purchases.”

iTunes was really the first to successfully initiate micropayments online. It was especially impressive because, as Isaacson said, it was to the music audience of all audiences, who have more than easy access to free music on peer to peer file-sharing applications. Apple paired iTunes with their iPod products, making it the primary stop for music management. With a slick, easy-to-use interface to shop for music and video, both computer nerds and newbies were drawn to it. At a price of 99 cents a song, a click or two was not nearly as painful as driving out to the store and handing a cashier one’s money away. Although those users could easily download songs for free, the ease of obtaining the exact song one wants in a matter of seconds at a very reasonable price is enough to keep people paying.

Kinsley

In his piece You Can’t Sell News by the Slice, Michael Kinsley says that Isaacson’s plan of micropayments will not work. Kinsley said that even if it does some how happen, it will falter as a method. He figures that the average online reader would ideally spend around $2 a month with each issue costing only about 10 cents. He states that $2 a month per reader, as many readers as there may be, is still not enough to save a periodical.

Kinsley also notes the flaw that incentive brings up. Kinsley argues that most people nowadays don’t pay for newspapers so much for the content as much as they do for the paper itself. Having it in print is still considered more sentimentally valuable and special than online. People pay for print because they like the feel of it and/or the look of it on paper, not because they simply feel they should have to pay for news. Kinsley rather believes that people generally think that news is something that all citizens have the right to know for free.

My Take

Kinsley holds a more realistic view than Isaacson. He believes that most newspapers will die out soon, but some few bigger ones like The New York Times and The Washington Post will survive past the current economic recession. Then advertisers will return and the remaining newspapers will be running again. Kinsley said that some periodicals will manage to successfully transfer business to online, and some may emerge as examples of how to make it in future journalism. He said that at this point, there will be a small number of periodicals, increasing competition greatly, which itself will force newspapers to improve themselves.

Micropayments seem to be the best solution to failing newspapers at the moment. Of course, it would require clever programming and design, as well as universal usage amongst all newspapers. If half of the newspapers used it and half did not, the half that does not charge for news would greatly dominate the other half. If a good application were designed to feature paid, very easy and organized access to all newspapers, then perhaps micropayments would work… for a while.

Like Kinsley said, failing newspapers cannot realistically hope to save themselves off of online revenue, especially if priced so low. However, if newspaper trends continue downward, a large number of periodicals will disappear, and a few strong ones will survive, as Kinsley said. If the case does indeed become that newspapers become scarce and an efficient micropayment system—perhaps one like Rex Sorgatz suggests—is developed and used world-wide, then news will be in a much higher demand. At this point, newspapers can significantly raise their price for news online, while packaging in some attractive extras, perhaps. If all of this is the case, then it is possible for newspapers to run successfully on online micropayments, but it's unlikely.

Micropayments and Other Good Jokes

Micropayments, the idea that people will pay a small fee for online news content, is just another example of why journalists should go to business school. Because businesspeople know that the public is not going to start paying for something they can already get for free. Cardinal business rule: Excess supply reduces demand and the amount consumers are willing to pay for the product.

The answer to journalism’s failing business model is not to counter it with equally bad business practices. Ever hear the saying “Why buy the cow if you’re already getting the milk for free,” well, apparently Walter Isaacson, author of How to Save Your Newspaper has not.

How to (Cough) Save Your Newspaper

According to Isaacson, newspapers are losing money because they haven’t found an easy and non-threatening way to sell their online content.

Since newspapers, in online form, are more popular than ever, Isaacson thinks most people would “merrily click through if it were cheap and easy enough” like a “nickel for an article or a dime for that day’s full edition or $2 for a month.“ If iTunes can do it, why can’t newspapers? How else is full global coverage going to be funded? As Isaacson says, the porn industry might even want to consider this new micropayment method.

The old advertising-only method, Isaacson writes, puts the focus on adds rather than news content. If the content became the new cash cow, then the focus would be back on the news. In order for journalists to keep doing good work, they need to be paid for it.

Henry Luce, co-founder of TIME and Rupert Murdoch, whom Isaacson uses as expert examples, were against free online newspapers because they knew people would stop paying for the hard copy. If you want people to value the newspaper then you can’t give its content away for free. So charge people a few cents for the content and even thought the web is teeming with free news sources, people will respect you and pay for it.

Comic by Sidney Harris

Micropayments: How You Won’t Save Your Newspaper

In opposition to micropayments, founding editor of Slate magazine Michael Kinsley wrote the article You Can’t Sell News by the Slice.

He argues that readers have never had to pay for the content, only the physical paper, and they shouldn’t have to start now. He suggests that giving away the content can be good for publishers who will have less distribution costs. Especially since the amounts Isaacson suggested for his micropayments wouldn’t even come close to what newspapers are making now, Kinsley says.

Kinsley also argues that the lower barriers to entry due to the ease of Internet publishing has increased competition, which is good for the news business. “When the recession ends, advertising will come back, with fewer places to go,” Kinsley writes. And when the economy turns around, the best online news competitors will be poised for success.

If it Wasn’t Already Obvious...

...micropayments won’t work.

Newspapers can’t guilt online readers into paying for content because, unlike downloading movies, music and books, reading news from alternative sources isn’t illegal. In fact, some of these informal sources are even more informative and less biased than some mediums of traditional journalism ( cough-Fox News).

Even if all the major newspapers started charging for their online content, readers would just turn to blogs like the Huffington Post and upstart online news publications like USC's Neon Tommy. Some of these new media outlets have found a different way to make a profit; I suggest newspapers follow their lead because the days when people paid to subscribe to old dinosaur newspapers are over.

Mike Masnick a writer for the blog Techdirt.com puts the micropayment idea into the “that’s-how-you-fail” category in his article Micropayments For News Represent A Huge Opportunity…For The Smart News Org That Avoids Them.

He argues that as soon as someone smart figures out a new business model for providing free online news coverage (and someone will do it) micropayments will only serve to decrease the competition for these media trailblazers.

Masnick advises that traditional journalists take an economics class on how pricing and competition works, hint: competition drives prices down.

I suggest we keep looking for a way to make journalism profitable and in the meantime take advantage of the new voices and techniques that have sprung up in the wake of online journalism. But, you know, if micropayments still sounds like a good idea to you, go ahead and try, you can’t make things any worse than they already are.

Micropayments the answer? I think not...

When considering the issue of micropayments for online news, there are really only two opinions that one can choose from: either you are in support of it or you are not, there is really no middle ground. Those in support of it have mostly likely read How to Save Your Newspaper, an article by the former managing editor of TIME Magazine, Walter Isaacson. If you haven’t checked this piece out, and this issue is important to you, then you are doing yourself a disservice by not doing so. Even if you are against the idea, one should check out this article, which was featured in the Business and Tech section of TIME on February 5th, 2009. Then, those against must also check out the New York Times’ rebuttal written by Michael Kinsley, the founding editor of Slate magazine, in the paper’s Opinion section just four days later.

The Idea – Micropayments

In How to Save Your Newspaper, Isaacson essentially does just that: offers his opinion on how to keep newspapers from going under during these rough economic times. As we have already hinted, his grand idea is the inclusion of micropayments for online newspaper articles, sort of like the payment for a song on iTunes. A great sounding idea on the service, Isaacson presents micropayment as “a one-click system with a really simple interface that will permit impulse purchases of a newspaper, magazine, article, blog or video for a penny, nickel, dime or whatever the creator chooses to charge.” However, even Isaacson had to mention past failures with the micropayment system in order to save his own credibility (such as with “Flooz, Beenz, CyberCash, Bitpass, Peppercoin and DigiCash”). Still, Isaacson maintains that considering the way the online newspaper climate has changed just over the last year, the micropayment system shows room for success now in this field – just as Steve Jobs’ iTunes creation and Jeff Bezos’ Kindle creation have flourished. In essence, Isaacson concludes that if such micropayment systems have already proven effective, and if newspapers are able to keep the prices cheap enough and the process easy enough, then consumers will be willing to pay. And if consumers are willing to pay, then the quality of journalism, along with the incentive to be a good journalist, will exponentially rise.

The counterargument – Why people won’t pay

In You Can’t Sell News by the Slice, Michael Kinsley offers a direct response to Isaacson’s idea, starting off with the simple phrase, “well, maybe.” Kinsley’s main rebuttal revolves around the price of newspaper itself – that is, the actual paper the news is printed on. He argues that, if nothing else, the development of Internet news has removed the costs that newspaper organizations face with paper printing. Furthermore, with those savings, big newspapers – which are now facing more competition than ever from other, smaller sources – should be able to weather this economic storm. To be specific, Kinsley says, “the Times, The Post and a few others probably will survive.” And when that happens? Well the newspaper industry will be as competitive as ever, as advertiser’s options will then be diminished, and the micropayment system will definitely not make sense.

What do I think?

Now while I do not completely agree with Michael Kinsley’s counterargument against micropayments, I do agree that they are not the answer to online journalism’s current economic problem. Instead, I agree with an article by a third voice, Steve Outing, called Forget Micropayments – Here's a Far Better Idea for Monetizing Content. Steve, an opinion writer for the online journal website Editor & Publisher, is a huge supporter of a start-up company called Kachingle. Now, Kachingle’s plan can get a little confusing, so if I lose you during my summary, I suggest that you check out Outing’s article for yourself. Here it goes:

In essence, users will be faced with a choice when signing up for web services (just as when they sign up for internet service itself) whether to “donate” money to favorite blogs, newspapers, magazines, etc. or not to. Either way, all of the websites content will remain available to everyone. Thus, it will be up to publishers (like latimes.com, huffingtonpost.com, even tmz.com) to inform its audiences about the importance of donating to their cause (in order to promote strong journalism). According to Outing, National Public Radio has been successfully operating under a similar plan. And if you do decide to “donate” money to the journalism sites you view? Well then the total amount you decide to put up will be split amongst the sites you have flagged as your favorites depending on how many times you visit them that particular month.

Make sense? It didn’t really to me either the first time I gave it a thought. How could a news organization possibly make money simply by asking for audiences to donate? Well, like Outing, I think you might be surprised by Kachingle’s success in the near future.

Oh my HTML

USC’s Annenberg School for Communication is preparing its students in the journalism program for the real world by taking a new direction in some of the curriculum. Like many media outlets around the world (like the New York Times and CNN, and other news organizations that are exclusively online, like the Drudge Report) have been doing, Annenberg is gearing its class toward online journalism.

How is Annenberg doing this?

The school has set up classes that are online specific with the goal of giving students the tools necessary to make it in the ever-changing world of online. From building web sites and blogs to creating multimedia slide shows, students are getting hands-on experience working with online elements.

Online specific classes include “Multimedia and Graphics in Online Publishing,” an online journalism seminar and “Introduction to Online Media,” the class I am currently enrolled in.

Class Assignments

One of our first assignments was to create a homepage, which Annenberg has provided to each student. In order to familiarize students with the basic building blocks of the internet, raw HTLM coding. Though the HTML code looks like it is written in a completely different language, once the user can see the pattern, it is easy to navigate and make simple changes, like font size and color. (I did the color myself, but blogger did the size. Apparently, I need to study more!)

Do we really need to know HTML?

I can definitely see the importance of understanding what HTML code looks like, so thank you Annenberg for giving me my own home page to work on. But with sites like www.blogger.com, the need for knowledge of HTML is dwindling.



It is much easier to go to a site, create an account, choose a template and start blogging than it is to download programs that allow you to transfer files, both text and images, to the Internet one by one. With easy to follow, step-by-step directions, site creators, like www.blogger.com and Dreamweaver, are a better alternative to use than building a page from scratch using raw HTML. It seems that it is more time-efficient as well.

But Annenberg has its heart in the right place by giving its students a basic knowledge of the language used to create the future online media outlets that they will surely become a part of.

HTML and Me: It's not a truck, it's a series of tubes

Three weeks ago, I lacked any concrete understanding of the internet. Aside from the fact that it made my life dramatically easier, all I knew was that it existed and that, as far as I was concerned, it could be used to do pretty much anything.
Now, having spent the last few weeks working to understand the most basic of programming languages, I can honestly say that I still have no idea how it all collaborates to create what we see when we log onto a web site. I feel that I've gained an understanding of the basic tools involved, but not their functions.
Nonetheless, learning a bit about basic HTML was valuable in terms of the respect the exercise instilled. I have now learned just enough to realize that the people who actually know what they're talking about have quite the task on their hands every day.
But the lesson has also been empowering. As I easily type normal text into a text box on Blogger, I realize the advantage our generation has been given. It pains me to imagine a world where, in order to publish online, one needed to write HTML from scratch.

Is HTML an Unnecessary Hassel?

I was already nervous when I was asked by my professor to set up my USC web space and create it using some sort of code--which I had no idea how to do. On top of me not being the most technologically advanced person I had missed the previous class, where I could've stayed extra time to complete it, and had guidance and moral support. I had a good reason to miss the class though, instead of my head exploding with html code, I was witnessing history at President Obama's Inauguration, totally worth it. But when I came back to the reality that was school I had no idea what I was doing.

My First Problem

I knew it was going to be difficult when I couldn't even activate my USC web account on my Mac. I opened up the terminal window and followed the USC directions but it wouldn't let me type in my login. After trying this about twenty times, I decided to ask someone for help. A friend told me to try it on the PCs in the Annenberg digital lab. I followed the web directions for a PC and my account was set up in 5 minutes.

Getting the Hang of It

Once I got to the building of my web space, things got more difficult. There was more to do. I had to use fetch to put my picture up. I had to use textedit to change the name of the website, and type in different color codes for different colors to appear. While I had no problems following directions, the whole thing just seemed very tedious to me. If I messed up one number or put a space when I didn't mean to it would mess up the way it looked when I went to the actual website. Overall, it took me about 3 hours to come up with this:

worth it... I'm not sure.

Blogging Service vs. HTML

Obviously, using a blogging service is a lot easier than using html. It is all set up for you already. When you use a blogging service you just input your text or your pictures to the application, no textedit or fetch involved. I'm sure that it is nice to understand html cause I still am not sure that I get the hang of it, but I really don't see the point in knowing it. Now, html seems almost prehistoric with programs such as dreamweaver and iweb that allow you to make a website with a few touches of a button. I understand that USC wanted us to learn exactly how images and text are being put on the web. Its a good foundation, but I don't think its necessary for an introduction to online media class.

Creating My USC Web Space

Working with HTML

As part of USC's curriculum, each journalism student is required to create a home page for the work that they do. To do this we are given a template that we must manipulate using raw HTML. While creating the page wasn't extremely difficult, it was definitely a little challenging if you've never done anything like that before. The template that we were given to manipulate looked like this:

It was pretty basic looking. But, using the raw HTML I was able to make the page my own, by changing the colors, fonts and sizes, and it ended up looking like this: My webspace.

I definitely think that it is important to know some HTML, and can understand USC's desire to teach it to us. After all, everything seems to moving more and more towards being web-based. However, there are so many programs now that make it possible to create web-pages without any HTML knowledge that the need to know it is probably less now than it was five years ago.

The Difference Between HTML and Blogger

Creating my first blog was definitely a different experience than raw HTML editing. Programs like Blogger make it so that you don't even have to see the HTML coding that goes into making a webpage. It's word processor type style makes it seem no more difficult than using a program like Microsoft Word; definitely easier than creating HTML on your own.

Why Know It?

Even if I never become an online journalist, I think having knowledge of both editing raw HTML and using programs like Blogger that edit the HTML for you will be useful in my future. There is little doubt that every one of us will in some way use the internet in our future careers. Therefore, I believe that creating our own webspace and blog are both valuable learning experiences to have.

Thoughts on Creating my USC Webspace

Creating my USC webspace was a pretty big hassle. You can check it out here. The process might have been simpler if I had been using a PC the entire time. The online directions didn't work while using a Mac and caused some confusion. TextEdit (the plain word processing program for Macs) caused some problems as well. I had to fidget with the preferences in order to find that I needed to switch the text type from rich to plain. Once you get used to working the HTML code and all of the programs it is pretty rewarding to see your content end up on the web.

While it's nice to learn about the HTML code and creating your own websites, creating blogs using blogger.com is MUCH easier. Blogger practically sets it up for you. All you do is type in the desired name and URL of the blog you are trying to create and just like that... you are done! Blogger allows you to type your posts, post your pictures, and link to websites like a normal word processor without having to go through and master complicated and confusing codes. Blogger is definitely a better use of time for the simple reason that it takes practically no time at all.

Despite the simplicity of sites like blogger, I do justify USC's decision to teach students how to create websites using HTML codes. As each day passes, our society grows more dependent on the internet. There is a greater chance that one day, our jobs will require us to perform basic web code tasks (even if those jobs do not require it now). I have no doubt that one day soon, even high schools will be instituting required classes that teach web coding. While it is not the easiest way to create your own web page, it is definitely valuable information that everyone can use.

My First Experience with HTML...

...did not go as planned.

I can easily blame my MacBook, but I won't do that. I know that if I had tried to do my assignment on a PC, I would have found some different sort of way to run into a problem. However despite all the road blocks I hit while trying to create my own website, in the end something happened that I totally didn't expect. I started to have fun.

I can't believe it, but even though HTML code looks like a bunch of madness, once I learned how to read it I became completely enthralled with the process. "Fetch" became my best friend, and I couldn't stop changing the color of my homepage or the font of all the text. I even changed my picture at least 4 times.

Take it from me, understanding HTML code is definitely a good skill to have. Even though I only created quite possibly the most plain, simplistic website ever, the knowledge I acquired in that process I can tell that from here the sky is the limit.

That being said...

...creating this Blogger account was way easier than anything I have ever had to do, especially including the creation of my own web page using HTML. Therefore, if learning HTML does not interest you, let Blogger do it all for you! Having experienced all aspects of this online culture for the first time now, I feel it is essential that one have knowledge of at least one of the mediums.

Here, check out my personal website creation

HTML 1, Monica 0

Setting up my JOUR309 online story home page was not exactly easy. I've created websites before (http://www.dogooddocs.com/), but I've always used more simple website builder tools. The process itself was pretty interesting though and it was certainly a good introductory lesson to the world of HTML. Though I still have not been able to successfully upload my picture, I'm confident I will be able to soon. Setting up the home page itself wasn't the time-consuming part; what was more difficult was navigating programs such as FileZilla or NotePad that I wasn't familiar with.

On the other hand, it was definitely easier to set up this blog. Blogger is much more user-friendly than using HTML for the inexperienced website builder, in my opinion. It is also more interactive, which I appreciate. I like being able to see my profile updated as I make changes and I also like that Blogger autosaves every few minutes so that none of my work will (or should not) ever be lost.

Though HTML coding seems like a tool that may not be essential to my immediate success as a journalist, I wouldn't be surprised if the knowledge came in handy someday. I think both this exercise as well as the HTML exercise are equally worthwhile and valuable because I am learning new things and gaining a better overall understanding of how online journalism works. I think Annenberg does a great job of making sure its students are well-equipped with the most relevant skills in order to be good journalists, whether it be in the field of print, broadcast or online. I look forward to learning more and updating this blog with my thoughts soon!

My Introduction to Blogs

Though I may not be the most technologically savvy person in the world, even an aspiring print journalist and self-considered dinosaur like myself can set up a blog.

Last Week I established an online story homepage. While I admit some difficulty in my initial foray into Wordpad, Puttying, Fetching and img src-ing, I found this process of creating and formatting a Web site to be quite useful; even if I can't claim mastery of these skills yet, I can now talk the talk and understand -- at least on a basic level -- the inner-stitchings of the Internet.

Certainly it is easier using a program like Blogger to set up a Web page. That said, I think there is added value in exposure to the process of coding pages. For having done both, I feel like a much more well-rounded dinosaur.

Figuring out this interweb thing

Last week our Journalism 309 class was assigned to create our own USC web spaces. I thought the task would be fairly straightforward, but perhaps I underestimated my ability to make everything regarding computers far more difficult than it needs to be.

Setting up the webspace and using PuTTY was easy enough, and changing the actual HTML tags wasn't so bad. But using the FTP was a nightmare. For some reason, my preview page looked completely fine when I opened it in Firefox. But when I uploaded it and tried to visit it, it was a bunch of indecipherable characters. Needless to say, I was very confused and frustrated.

It turns out I was using the wrong text editor when I was changing the HTML. I didn't know that something that simple could so drastically alter the overall effect. The instructions could have been a little clearer, but I should have known better as well. All in all, I'd like to think the end product turned out pretty well.

Still, I'm very happy to be moving on to blogger and other non-HTML work. This seems a lot more straightforward and I'm more comfortable using a basic CMS than I am working with HTML. I'm going to be blogging soon for The National Football Post, so I hope to use some of the skills I learn in this class when I start blogging. I'd imagine that the CMS used on that website might be a little bit more complicated, but I'll try to figure it out along the way. That's what I've been doing with blogger, and it seems to be going pretty well so far.

HTML vs. Blogger

Last week, we were required to create a personal USC web page with HTML for class. Since I am somewhat familiar with basic HTML and web page creation, it was not difficult. However, I can imagine how intimidating and confusing it must have been for people who have never seen HTML before, let alone are not very familiar with computers. I am confident though that after some practice, trial and error, everyone will get the hang of it.

Then, we were assigned to create a blog and post. I am sure everyone was relieved to see the ease of creating it after having to deal with FileZilla and PuTTY with HTML last week. I also have quite a bit of experience with Blogger in particular, having creating my own personal blog and a blog for my WRIT340 class only last semester. Regardless of that, Blogger makes creating a web page so much easier. It is basically the same as Microsoft Word where you bold, change color, add a link or picture with just a couple of clicks:

Although no one will have the need for HTML as a journalist in the future--with more and more web creation software releasing that is making it easier and easier--knowing basic HTML couldn't hurt. Knowing generally how a web page is held together can help make the overall picture clearer. I think it was a smart decision on Annenberg's part making HTML part of the curriculum for Journalism 309.

Coding from Scratch

Last week I used HTML for the first time to create my Journalism 309 Homepage. The week before I didn't know what "HTML" stood for, turns out it means HyperText Markup Language. Like learning French, using HTML was something I'd always planned to do but never would, so I'm glad Annenberg required it.

Since this page is fairly simple, it was pretty fun and easy to do. The hardest part was locating files using the FTP( file transfer protocol, I learned that too) Filezilla, which I downloaded from the free software available at USC ITS. I also had a few problems with broken file links when I tried to upload my picture but once I figured out the mechanics of Filezilla it was quite easy. The whole page took me about an hour and half to complete, including playing with the colors and fonts. After I got the hang of it, trying new things became a little addicting.

This week the class assignment was to create this blog, which you are obviously reading. I have to say it was much easier that using HTML. Instead of figuring out coding and how to use Filezilla, I spent most of my time on the content and layout. While creating a blog with blogger's template was a lot faster than coding my own page, it doesn't give me the same amount of freedom because the templates are more limiting in terms of design. Even thought I don't know how to create anything fancy with coding, I liked knowing that it was a possibility. However, if you want to be able to post information as quickly as possible and you're not that concerned with design creativity, an online blog site is probably much more efficient that coding a page.

Even though I probably won't be coding pages for a living I think I definitely gained an important piece of industry knowledge. The future of journalism is online, knowing how to use online outlets is important if I want to survive in the field. I like knowing that if I had to, I could create a web page from scratch. And there are other perks... Who knew learning about HTML would be good for my social life, but it seems to have brought me and my techie friends closer together. They think I'm one step closer to joining their world-I doubt it, it's not like I'm counting in binary or anything.

Creating Things from Scratch is Not My Forte

In this century, creating a blog or web page might be something you think would be easy. Not in my case. Being to create a web space for a resume or personal projects is, of course, a very valuable skill to possess, especially considering the way the industry seems to be moving.
The problem comes in when the creator of a web space is what I will call “technically impaired.” I fit into this category perfectly. Beyond being able to use the Internet and somewhat skillfully use some computer applications, I’m pretty limited on technical ability. Therefore, creating my very own web space from scratch is nearly impossible for me to do. HTML, FTP, pUTTY… it’s all another language to me, and one that I’m finding to very difficult to decipher and learn.
Creating a blog is a different story. You go to Blogger.com, you sign up for an account, press a couple of buttons and voila! You have a blog. There’s no need to use HTML code. It does it all for you, so it’s much easier for the average citizen of the Internet to create and keep a blog going. So this has been an almost fun experience- blogging I mean. The web space creates some difficulties.
The fact that USC has decided to prepare its students for the ever-increasing technological world definitely shows that the University knows what’s going on. I feel very fortunate being able to take a class and learn the basics about how to create a web site for myself. In the future, I’m sure it will become a skill that everyone must at least have basic knowledge of.

Brittany

HTML vs Blogger

The past few weeks have really opened my eyes to the way the online world works. Whenever I visited a website in the past, I used to take the complexity of it for granted. For example, the slideshows on espn.com or the videos on various websites have always just been a part of the website for me. Now, I realize that it takes a lot of hard work and experience to format a website and get all the extra things such as videos, online and ready to view.

When I first started creating the only story home page on my USC Web space, I was extremely confused. I had never really heard of HTML or any of the other various terms that were crucial to the success of my web space. But, after some trial and error, I realized that it wasn't as hard as it seemed. It was actually really neat to be able to start from scratch and build a website. While it was a good experience, I don't feel like this would help me later on in life. As a future broadcaster, I don't think I will ever need to create a website from scratch using HTML. So, while I did learn a lot of new things about the online world, I don't feel like I will ever need to do this again. Moreover, this was a very valuable experience and worthwile because it enabled me to learn about something I am on every single day in the internet, but it's not something I will do again.

Creating and formatting this blog has been incredibly easy. Blogger makes it painless to create a blog and do what you want with it. It took me a total of one minute to set up this blog, while it took about a half hour or more to create the online story home page. The difference between creating the raw HTML versus creating this blog is enormous. This blog is a lot easier becuase you don't need to deal with all of the applications such as fetch and putty. While it may have been easier to create this blog, the process of creating the raw HTML was a lot more rewarding because I did everything myself. Finally, creating the blog was a better use of my time because I will use this a lot more and our society has shown that blogging is taking over.