Slashdot Mirror
AP Considers Making Content Require Payment
TechDirt is reporting that the Associated Press is poised to be the next in a long line of news organizations to completely bungle their online distribution methods by making their content require payment. While this wouldn't happen for a while due to deals with others, like Google, to distribute AP content for free, even considering this is a massive step in the wrong direction. "Also, I know we point this out every time some clueless news exec claims that users need to pay, but it's worth mentioning again: nowhere do they discuss why people should want to pay. Nowhere do they explain what extra value they're adding that will make people pay. Instead, they think that if they put up a paywall, people will magically pay -- even though the paywall itself is what takes away much of the value by making it harder for people to do what they want with the news: to spread it, to comment on it, to participate in the story. Until newspaper execs figure this out, they're only going to keep making things worse."
when newspapers were free. They made their profits via advertising. Of course, that was a long time ago, before they found out that they could double-dip.
As an employee of AFP (the oldest news wire in the world) I would like to point out a couple of things. First, neither the AP nor Reuters are newspapers. They are, along with AFP, news WIRES which provide news to content providers (traditionally newspapers and television news programs, but now google, yahoo, and others as well). So it has never been 'free' - it is paid for by the content providers, who in turn (sometimes) provide it for free to their own customers. Secondly, AFP does provide a very extensive english-language news wire, so you will not be left in the dark if AP and reuters go away - (if you don't believe me, start looking at the bylines from some of your articles on google or yahoo news - a lot of them will have a AFP credit). We are partly funded by the French government, so we will be around to stay! Enjoy!
The BBC isn`t government controlled. It is publicly funded and the amount of that funding is set ultimately by government.
The proof for BBC independence is that whatever government is in power, their supporters always claim the BBC is a puppet of the opposition. This is exactly how an unbiased news outlet should be perceived in my view.
You could argue that as the government sets the tax level (after lobbying from the BBC) that it can control the content but any government that tried to do that would be swiftly out on its ear.
The BBC has never been "nationalized" either. It has always been independent, though financed through a special "license" you buy in order to receive its television broadcasts. BBC radio has not required this license for many years.
The BBC has to worry less about pleasing its corporate masters and more about serving the public, since it's the public that's footing the bill. It's essentially the same principle that keeps Consumer Reports and public radio a cut above the rest
The public might be footing the bill for the BBC over here, but there is no option as to whether to pay or not while watching any tv. As even if you only watch the advert funded independent channels and never watch a single moment of BBC you by law still have to pay the BBC £130 a year for the pleasure of not watching any BBC. The only way of not paying a TV license is to only use your TV to watch dvds, play games, etc and to have no means of picking up any tv channels on the TV.
This is something that has always really bugged me that if I want to watch Sky I have to still pay the BBC for doing it.
NPR is only funded about 2% by the government. (And I believe most of that is bidded on, not just handed to them.) So yes, it is more "listener-supported" than "taxpayer-funded". And I don't think you understand what "non-profit" means, either. Where it gets the money is irrelevant, it's what it does with it that matters.
acutally, no, there aren't really other sources of the type of news that the AP provides. All of those 'independent' new sources usually to clip and compile AP or Reuter's stories without paying them a dime. There is some truly independent local coverage in some areas, but no reliable coverage in third-world countries, warzones, or areas without basic protections on free speech. If people want to know what is going on in these areas, there will need to be paid, organized reporters to create content. Consumers of that content will pay for it one way or another, either through direct payment, or increased cost of all other products due to marketing. It's just simple math.
I have no idea where Wikipedia is getting that 2% number, because it's not even correct according to its own citation. Maybe they're talking about funding direct from the federal government (e.g., not through the CPB). I don't know.
According to NPR, they are funded by:
31% listener pledges, memberships, etc. As the GP points out, tax-deducatable donations are just a special kind of government funding.
20% corporate underwriting
11% from Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which is federally funded)
10% licensee supported (some of which are funded by local/state, federal?)
9% from foundations (any of which may receive government support) and major gifts
5% state and local governments
14% all other sources (Wikipedia claims universities, some of which are subsidized by government)
I wouldn't count Public radio as above the rest. I listen to it quite often and it's riddled with opinionated reporting and biased approaches that more or less pushed agendas. Public television is much in the same light with it's programing too (and yes, I watch a considerable amount of that too). Of course this has been no secrete to many people. It seems the only ones in the dark are the ones already leaning towards it's biases.