Slashdot Mirror
Online Newspapers Turning a Profit
PCOL writes "The Asia Times reports that after years of losing money, online newspapers are starting to pay off. The New York Times has gone from losing $7.5M on their site in 2001 to an $8M profit in 2002. The new profitability is attributed to changes in the technology for delivering ads which make it possible to embed advertising in news stories and tie the ads to articles related to reader's interests without resorting to pop-ups and banners. As print newspaper readers age and die, no new readers are replacing them and one survey found that 46 percent of all journalists believe that within 15 years their publication will only be available online."
It makes sense that the most profitible orgainizations on the Internet are the ones that are serving the purpose for which it was created (information dissemination).
I would still like to see a buisiness model for the Net that is something other than the "Give stuff away for free but pop-up ads" model.
I think that once Micro-Payments roll around to being feasible, it will be alot easier for companies to get paid for what they do without having to crowd up the Internet with those fsking ads all over the place.
It seems to me as the main advantage of newspapers printed on papers is that it is much more comfortable to look at than a computer screen. It is also more comfortable to read in a favourite chair.
I can't imagine that large portions of the population will be willing to give these comforts up for less than a buck a day.
Of course, one day ultra-light laptops with revolutionary, easy-on-the-eyes screens may be commonplace; but until then I would not count out the printing press.
Tor
It'll be a shame if print newspapers die out.
I'll admit that I'm speaking a bit from nostalgia here, as I do enjoy sitting down with something physical in front of me. I also tend to think of the papers as having more substance, somehow, than their online counterparts-- as if seeing all the pages in front of me will give me a fuller story than clicking link-to-link.
But the real reason I see the death of print media as a shame is the historical record the papers provide. Any library can archive their old papers for reference for all. Electronic media, as we're all aware, is subject to technology shifts, media that decays considerably faster than paper, and so on. It takes a fire, or years of neglect, to do the same to the physical object. A mistaken click of a button in a database somewhere could lose years of information, and what then?
Online papers are great, and are my primary source for news(I quit TV a year and a half ago), but an online paper is not quite a substitute good for a real world paper. They are still easier on the eyes, than computer screens, they can be picked up in any convenience store, you can't roll up a computer and threaten stray dogs with it, etc. I'm sure readers can think of many more ways that online newspapers and physical media have their own advantages and disadbantages. They are to disimilar for some %46 of real papers to be eliminated.
I have a hard time believing that the internet is the sole reason for declining readership. Other reasons may include the ever lower quality of the reporting, ie. the increasing coverage of the entertainment industry and the decreasing coverage of old fashioned "hard news" and investigative reporting. Diminishing faith in the objectivity of the coverage could be a reason also.
Although the internet is obviously partially to blame, I think most of the newspaper industries problems are self inflicted.
One problem I have with obtaining all of my news online is that editorial changes to the article can be made after publication without being noted.
This means that facts and 'controversial' ideas can be edited, modified and even deleted without notifying the public. I have several friends who insist on copying the articles they read directly to their hard drive because they have experience with articles 'disappearing' or changing without being noted.
Posting online allows news sources to get the news out much faster than was ever possible in the past. It seems to me, however, that it also requires a much more stringent approach to journalistic 'integrity'. In the neverending fight for readers and stories, papers can publish articles containing misinformation simply to get the story out first and then change the content later to reflect a more accurate portrayal of events.
If the only source of news is the web, how is the public supposed to know that things were ever changed? Human memory is questionable at best. Think 1984 (i know i know i know) for a second and consider Winston's job of rewriting news and, therefore, history.
Oops- forgot to remove my tinfoil hat...
That's ok, Jesus likes me anyway.
Here is an example. Consider "Poll: Hong Kong residents optimistic". I have been able to refer this article to several friends and acquaintances over the course of several years. Unlike an article from an old newspaper, the online article will not be lost or will not disappear with time. The article is shocking and dispels many of the myths about Chinese society. Before reading the article, most Americans believed that the Chinese are like, well, Americans. After reading the article, most Americans believe otherwise. The majority of Chinese in Hong Kong (to the shock of many Americans reading the article) actually cheered the Chinese government and supported the unification of Hong Kong and mainland China.
Anyhow, by ensuring that we all have an accurate picture of the world, as citizens of Western society, we can better ensure that Western governments enact legislation that best deals with other nations and peoples. Better immigration policy would be one result of the new online news.
Circumventing NYTimes.com is just dumb. They don't spam you and the least you could do for one of the best pieces of journalism in the nation is at lest tell them that you're reading. There is no reason why you shouldn't sign up. Jesus, it's FUCKING FREE.
You know, there's one nice thing about paper newspapers, and some but not all online newspapers and magazines (this certainly excludes the New York Times). When I read a normal newspaper, I'm not leaving a digital slime trail behind myself that records everything I've read. Most online papers quietly deposit cookies on you and track you using those cookies. I don't know why the NY Times registration process is so much more invasive. They insist on an email address. I read the NYT all the time, and I have a NYT cookie that I never even think about. I just went to my NYT profile page. It's listing an email address I had in 1996. Yikes. And back then I foolishly chose my (rare) last name as my NYT username. I must have accrued a couple thousand rows in their database by now. I can only guess what sort of conclusions could be drawn about me and my reading habits in the past 7 years. Which makes me wonder if the New York Times has ever received subpoenas from the Justice department (which the PATRIOT Act forbids them from even disclosing).
No totalitarian government in history has ever had access to this type of information. Can you imagine if the Nazis had detailed records of every Berlin newspaper article read by any German citizen during the twenties? And they had the computational resources to do data mining and assign a score to each German based on this information? Remaining silent during the actual repression wouldn't even help you anymore! The U.S. isn't exactly Nazi Germany at the moment. But who knows what might happen five, ten, or twenty years from now? People here presume the U.S. will never become a totalitarian state- bring it up and people laugh in your face- but that's a bad sign. It's an indication that we aren't exercising our eternal vigilance. We assume we'll always have this freedom- after all, we're Americans. We'll think we still have it after they've taken it away.
So I sometimes wonder if all my smartass comments on Slashdot will ever come back to haunt me. Maybe this post will be read by the thought police in 2010. Nobody ever deletes anything. (Hopefully Slashdot's lousy search functionality will foil them.) But I don't worry about it anymore. Between my stupid USENET posts during college, sites like this one, and my surfing habits, I figure I've left behind so many indications of being a troublemaker that it would be pointless to shut up now. But I do think about it sometimes.
Actually, televised news has historically been the biggest scapegoat for declining newspaper readership. Given that TV is even worse than the newspaper for "human interest" stories, I think it's fairly likely that the Internet is just the final nail in the coffin. Big stacks of paper simply aren't an efficient means of distributing news anymore.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD