Slashdot Mirror
Future of Internet News?
Matthew asks: "Now that the Internet has become an integral part of many people's lives, it has also become the place where many of us get our daily news reports (think Slashdot, New York Times, etc). The decentralization of the Internet offers many advantages over traditional media such as newspapers and television, as the user has more control over what to view and when to view it. But how does the future of this utopia look? With the uprise of ad blockers, are we going to be able to get our news for free? Will the Internet become a place for the "selected few" with money to spend? How do DRM and Trusted Computing play into the role? What does Darwin say will happen to newspapers, radio, television?"
As long as people use IE and browsers that don't natively support ad-blocking (or pop-up blocking, as is the case up to SP2), ads will still be the driving force behind Internet mainstream news. Once ad-blockers really catch on, registration will be required more for spam purposes, then after that, it'll require real registration and payment.
Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
Who said it was a utopia? Most people getting their news from major news sites that are offshoots of the same media companies that run TV. The other news is made up of what people actively seek to find out about. So that means people going out and finding the stories that reinforce their existing opinions, further fragmenting society.
Utopia? Not as such.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
When I read news, I want 3 page articles about it. Most of these stories you read online or in a paper could be put into one sentence and it would have the same value.
The content control becomes oligarchical. At least, that's where it leads.
Well, you know in cyberpunk movies how the technology always seems old and cobbled-together? Well, thats what people will start doing when things are commodotized enough and when they lose all the freedom they used to have with the old stuff. The "new shiny internet" (tm) will be a DRM laden piece of crap, and anybody who is interested will just hop on a darknet.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Hmm, I personally get the majority of my news from the 'net - the New York Times is simply prohibitively expensive in real life up here in Canada, and Google News and CNET provide some info that I wouldn't otherwise find in the local papers - which are quite good.
That being said, I do read a real paper every morning with breakfast, and I don't see the current model of dual-distribution fading (that of the print edition + the internet edition. Some choice quotes from the post are simply not going to hold up:
With the uprise of ad blockers, are we going to be able to get our news for free?
I'd like to see some statistics, but I don't think that this is a widespread phenomenon. Indeed, I know a lot of tech savvy people and some don't use ad-blocker for philosophical reasons, and some are just too lazy (some do use it, and I think it's great). And the majority of people continue to use IE, and even smirk at the notion of switching browsers!
The decentralization of the Internet offers many advantages over traditional media such as newspapers and television, as the user has more control over what to view and when to view it. But how does the future of this utopia look?
Come now.. Utopia? Seems a little perjorative. Yes, there are advantages - but the good, fact-referenced (well, hopefully) stories are only there because of the ads and the print editions! The internet is in most cases a mere adjunct of the print edition. It does offer advantages.. but some disadvantages too. I love my computer, and I still prefer reading a print edition . . . can't even put a rational reason down. I spend most of my day looking at computers anyways.
Will the Internet become a place for the "selected few" with money to spend?
No. I don't think so. The current distrbution model is working just fine. Ad-revenues are good, and there are simply so many online sources of news (NYT, CBC, BBC, Washington Post, etc. etc.) that if one paper goes to a pay model, then boom - they just loose their market share. They could all get together, but that would be monopoly and illegal.
So, for those reasons, I feel the future of internet news is bright and doesn't hold any of the radical changes forseen by 'Matthew'.
"There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
- Bob Dylan
Yes, what would Darwin say about television, radio and newspapers? Let's see... Darwin was a biologist, and none of these are biological. They don't reproduce, so they're not susceptible to natural selection, and they don't need to mate, so sexual selection is also irrelevant. I guess evolution happens through other means in the media business.
How does the "uprise [sic] of ad blockers" change anything? We've been flipping past newspaper ads, going to the bathroom during TV commercials and changing the channel during radio ad spots for quite a while, and the free market hasn't collapsed -- how is the Internet any different?
All I block is popups.
I love the principle of advertising covering website costs. Why? Because I don't feel like giving out cash to read the news.
If ads, don't cover enough of the bill, were going to end up with micropayments. Using something like Amazon.com as an intermediary... and you pay perhaps $0.25-0.50 to read an article. IMHO I'd rather not get to that point.
I don't think banners are such a big deal. I prefer the subtle google ones.
IMHO the best model uses the following:
- Banner Ads
- Subscription service for no ads
- Micropayments
Just the other day I started resurrecting MacVillage.net. I did that as well. There banner adsads (I'm considering a subscription service if people want it). And there's the ability to give a micropayment ($1).
On the bottom of the page is a simple request. If you can spare a dollar, and want to keep the minimalist ad appearance, consider giving a dollar.
In the past life of the website, it prevented popup ads and such. Hopefully this time it will as well.
Here's an example
The ads IMHO aren't obtrusive or in the way. There will be one Google text ad in the content area (I'm experimenting with that). But intentionally text so it doesn't stick out to much.
I like having very few ads. And hopefully enough people like it too... and will help keep it that way.
I think everyone benefits.
Hello webmasters,
I block your ads when they get in my way.
Remember the [blink] tag? Why would a flashing graphic be any less annoying?
If your ads flash, blink, move around, make noise, or freeze my browser for 3 minutes while it loads an in-banner video I do not want to see, I will block your ads.
Do not bitch, moan, or say "but it's the advertisers that want to annoy you so". Just don't have ads that attempt to FORCE me to watch them. I will go to your site, I will block the ads, I will not feel bad about it. I used to block them my putting hand over the screen, now I have a ready-made plug-in that lets me rest my arm. The more intolerable your ads become, the more drastic our countermeasures become. This didn't have to be an arms race, but since you forced our hand, now we have adblock.
Sincerly,
Someone fed up.
You can't take the sky from me...
Why is this so bad? Even if people get their news from 1 or 2 sources that are heavily biased, the opposing viewpoints are a click away. Often, they provide links and connect to each other, despite being mortal enemies with irreconcilable differences. (I never heard of Daily Kos until I started reading LGF regularly, for instance.)
Users get to determine what they read and in what format they read it in. They can even determine how much of which slant they want on the story.
Without the internet, you would have to search long and far to find opposing viewpoints. You'd have to take what you read at face value or go pay a visit to the library and hope they have recent, relevant material. Either that, or you'd have to subscribe to every magazine and newspaper on earth.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
I'm casting no asparagus here, but when the original source is gone and there is no "library" of archived material you can check against, how can anyone be sure that a newsitem on a geocities account is complete and faithful to the original?
Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
Unless you buy an online subscription, the news on the web is just headlines with little in depth material.
Yeah, so buy a subscription! People do need to realize that it does cost money to report news. From paying the reporter to outfitting them with camera equipment etc..., to paying news distribution costs (even Internet distribution has significant costs), it all is not free and if you find a news source that provides you with information you value, support them. Thus my admonition to support NPR. I send money to NPR, the WSJ and the NYTimes and Slashdot because I value their information. As to the others, their models make one view advertisements to pay for the delivery costs, and that is OK by me as long as they are not overly obtrusive and block the actual news.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
No longer can charlatans and quacks fool or manipulate you as easily.
Assuming that people want unbiased and accurate information. Often what people want isn't facts to help them make up their minds; they've already made up their minds and they want to hear the facts that justify their thinking. Look at how much money is made by Fox News or _Fahrenheit 9/11_. What's selling these days is propaganda, not unbiased news.
I apply the same approach to television news. Where I am, we get one channel broadcasting news at 5pm, another two at 6pm, and a fourth at 7pm. That means that (if you can stand listening to that much crap for that long) you can get at least three different versions of events from TV alone every day.
At first I found it interesting that each providor put such a totally different spin on the 'facts', then it amused me - don't these people realise that people can watch other versions of events, and see right through their sensationalist crap?
Now it just sickens me. It sickens me that they have zero conscience and zero integrity, and zero interest in reporting what actually happened and that they spin such totally misrepresented crap knowing full well that plenty of people don't know any better than to just swallow their stories hook, line and sinker.
Journalistic integrity is a long-dead myth. Those bastards don't care about reporting facts, they care about finding ways to feed advertising to people, and if they have to sensationalise a story to the point of outright lying to get people to listen/read/watch their advertising, then they won't hesitate for a second to do it.
It's not about the news anymore folks, it's about the advertising.
I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
BBC is worth an extra mention..
The main article wonders about ad blockers. Well, as most of us probably know, the whole ad problem is solved on the BBC.
This brings me to another point (and note that I'm not trolling): at least some Americans should get over their fear of government-affiliated institutions. "Throwing away" money can actually be quite good for many things: BBC doesn't have to worry about pleasing the advertisers, since there are none. Taxpayer funding luckily doesn't mean government control either, at least not in this case.
Oh and I'm from the Nordic countries myself, but I get most of my news from the bbc.