The Future of Journalism Online

twitter writes "The slide in newspaper subscriptions continues for obvious reasons: convenience, variety, depth, cost and user control are all in favor of pull media. The BBC is wondering what this will ultimately mean for journalism. One interesting issue is brought up: 'papers like France's Libération [have] traditionally shunned advertising it deemed politically compromising and relied on its cover price for its income.' Even they see that internet distribution is the answer, but the BBC worries about the details." From the article: "The International Herald Tribune now sees itself as a media organisation rather than just a paper; their website features video stories and has taken the step of charging for premium content. 'Good journalism costs money and so we are trying to see what we can do to make sure we can continue to grow and support the business,' said Meredith Artley, director of digital development at the International Herald Tribune. "

Comments

The Future of the Monolithic Journalism Stack

[newscloud]

The traditional mainstream media is essentially a monolithic workflow stack for reporting information that depends on scale for advertising revenue. The Internet doesn't change the basic structure of the operation - or its incentives. In contrast, the future of journalism online is like to be distributed, more like honey from a beehive. In this spirit, we released our platform to the open source community this past week. There is much work to do. We're like a tenth of a nanosecond past the big bang of online journalism.

It's all in the delivery

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd definitely subscribe to a newspaper...if it were possible for me to subscribe to one. I live approximately halfway between Baltimore and Washington, D.C. in a 300-unit apartment complex. I've tried to subscribe to both the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun, but neither offers delivery in my area. In one of the most connected areas of the country, I find it hard to believe that I can't pay someone to toss a newspaper tossed on my front stoop, but that's the truth.

Re:It's a matter of trust...

[jlarocco]

The on-line versions are going to have to compete in the 24x7 world, and actually improve their standards of reporting if they want to compete with the blogosphere.

Maybe I'm only one, but I simply don't trust blogs as news sources. Even at their best, their "news" is rehashed from a real news source.

No.

[jb.hl.com]

I could, easily, read my chosen paper online, but I choose not to. The typography is better and easier on my eyes. The viewing area is bigger, and can fit more information in it without having to scroll down (reading from paper feels far more natural than reading from a screen). It's more convenient (I can read a paper on my couch, in the canteen at work, in bed, on the can, just about anywhere really...). Papers aren't going to die any time soon.

info on medical e-publishing kiing off print -same

[docinthemachine]

The progressive killing off of traditional print publishing by e-publishing is true and here to stay in all fields. Hre is a review of how strong this trend is in medical e-publishing where free open source e-text is replacing traditional medical journals. The same is happening for fiction. read more here at : http://docinthemachine.com/2006/12/05/is-paper-med ical-publishing-dead/

Re:You don't need to.

[theLOUDroom]

Nationally, the NY Times and other papers of similar weight remain bastions of actual reporting.

As Huey Freeman would put it:
Read Dummy!

The NYT might look great compared to Fox News, but they have been far from exemplary.

Gossip Tabloids changed at all?

[tulsaoc3guy]

I would venture to say that the gossip tabloids, both British and American, have been largely unaffected by the Internet.