Is Journalism Dying/Dead?

[tucas]

Interested to hear people's thoughts on the subject. With Post Media's recent layoffs, Rogers recent cutbacks in their media department, and CHCH in Hamilton letting go over 100 people, is traditional journalism on its way out?

People can always access news for free so the news organizations are being limited to paying salaries with advertising revenue.

The most successful form of journalism has become click bait or brand journalism. Do you pay for the news you consume? Would you pay for the news you consume if you were told you had to?

If not, what would you recommendation be on what you'd like to see from journalists/news outlets to make their news more interesting to you? What would it take for you to pay for news?

I think it's an interesting topic that people don't talk about much. Interested to hear what people think.

[SkywalkerAC]

It's about ethics in gaming journalism

[SkywalkerAC]

I don't pay for news currently, save through my Shaw cable/internet package. I would consider it though. News orgs might be able to leverage VR to get people subscribing again.

[Bendit]

Good topic. At the present time I pay for access to 2 of the major newspaper sites. Am currently on a full price (US$5.00/wk) at one and on a beginner 99c/wk for the next 3 mos. on another...full access to both. Am not sure whether I can sustain both long term.

I recognize it's tough sledding for news orgs. out there to generate a large enough revenue stream/s just thru advts. What with most everyone using Adblock s/w! But the current charge model being used is probably not sustainable either....shrinkage shall continue among the various deliverers and we shall be left with just a few of the very top providers. Not much different to what is happening in other businesses...not good for choices or new startups.

A new model needs to be developed where delivery and commisserate charges have to be attached so readers can choose what they want to access. I can envision one large hub (like a Amazon.com) where like the tv cable companies...there could be offerings by news categories (politics, sports, arts etc etc) and sites like the Globe&Mail, New York Times, SI, Rolling Stone (like the individual tv studios do with cable providers) join. The hub revenues are then shared in some way with the content providers.

But...I think I pay too much for cable today!!

Inevitable I think unless we want good and necessary reportage as we know it to disappear. That would be a loss indeed on many levels....basic education and accountability being just a couple.

ps...just remembered "Spotlight" the movie (recently winning an Oscar). For those unaware this was a newspaper...the Boston Globe... undertaking to expose the terrible abuse by catholic priests in Boston and then the US. Such investigative reporting are taking a big hit because of downsizing and budgetary issues. If one hasnt seen the movie...it's a good one.

[tucas]

I had someone pitch an idea of essentially just adding $5 to everyone's phone bill that then gets distributed to news outlets.

I just find it interesting. People are willing to go to a dentist and expect to pay them to operate on them but people are so against paying journalists to tell them the news.

[rocwell]

I had someone pitch an idea of essentially just adding $5 to everyone's phone bill that then gets distributed to news outlets.

You see, journalism is not dying. It's evolving.

[tucas]

Good topic. At the present time I pay for access to 2 of the major newspaper sites. Am currently on a full price (US$5.00/wk) at one and on a beginner 99c/wk for the next 3 mos. on another...full access to both. Am not sure whether I can sustain both long term.

I recognize it's tough sledding for news orgs. out there to generate a large enough revenue stream/s just thru advts. What with most everyone using Adblock s/w! But the current charge model being used is probably not sustainable either....shrinkage shall continue among the various deliverers and we shall be left with just a few of the very top providers. Not much different to what is happening in other businesses...not good for choices or new startups.

A new model needs to be developed where delivery and commisserate charges have to be attached so readers can choose what they want to access. I can envision one large hub (like a Amazon.com) where like the tv cable companies...there could be offerings by news categories (politics, sports, arts etc etc) and sites like the Globe&Mail, New York Times, SI, Rolling Stone (like the individual tv studios do with cable providers) join. The hub revenues are then shared in some way with the content providers.

But...I think I pay too much for cable today!!

Inevitable I think unless we want good and necessary reportage as we know it to disappear. That would be a loss indeed on many levels....basic education and accountability being just a couple.

ps...just remembered "Spotlight" the movie (recently winning an Oscar). For those unaware this was a newspaper...the Boston Globe... undertaking to expose the terrible abuse by catholic priests in Boston and then the US. Such investigative reporting are taking a big hit because of downsizing and budgetary issues. If one hasnt seen the movie...it's a good one.

I really like a lot of your points. Anyone can write and anyone can tell the news per se. And I think that's the reason people have become so against paying for journalism. But in the process it's really limited the ability of true hard hitting journalism.

I like the idea of pooling a collection of news sources and charging a set monthly fee for access. Almost like CP Newswire but for the casual news reader.

[Bendit]

I really like a lot of your points. Anyone can write and anyone can tell the news per se. And I think that's the reason people have become so against paying for journalism. But in the process it's really limited the ability of true hard hitting journalism.

I like the idea of pooling a collection of news sources and charging a set monthly fee for access. Almost like CP Newswire but for the casual news reader.

There is of course a sort of bitter irony in this topic (which I hope doesn't come to pass)...there are freedom of expression laws in the constitutions of both Canada & the US. And the internet was deemed (and has succeeded for the most part) to spread access to information as democratically as possible. Sometimes this is derailed because of cost or a country's political laws of denial of course.

But there are downsides...as in this case maybe. It is difficult to manage...and I like that in a non-tech sense. It should be open. But then we have commerce. And in order to pursue equitable commerce where the producer of "whatever" is adequately compensated in my view to keep the enterprise of basic journalism going and necessary for a modern democracy. Music, literature and art are other segments trying to cope.....lots of exposure but monetization is still a bit of a problem.

Private observation: Good teachers and writers (journalists included) are probably overworked and underpaid. I am sure there are others.

[Apollo]

When the journalism is more focused on getting the correct details on what Blake Shelton or Kim Kardasian is up to rather than the correct facts on what's happening in Syria and Europe I would say yes, the field is hurting badly. Journalism should prioritize what matters to humanity and not attention starved out of touch celebrities living fake lives.

Tucas, in regards to the service you proposed, there are sites out there like that right now for free. The only problem is youre presented a view of the world through the lens of what they're selling and I'm not talking tangible good. It's A LOT of work to truly understand what's happening in this day in age and it's ironic given the power of the internet. There's just so much BS, so much laziness and so much biased journalism that you need to look at many places to get the true vision. Most of us don't have time for that, I know I don't.

I find the best journalism is at the local level. It's seems in more cases no nonsense and to the point. I just want the facts when it comes to news. I can form my own opinion. I'm a big boy.

[tucas]

When the journalism is more focused on getting the correct details on what Blake Shelton or Kim Kardasian is up to rather than the correct facts on what's happening in Syria and Europe I would say yes, the field is hurting badly. Journalism should prioritize what matters to humanity and not attention starved out of touch celebrities living fake lives.

Tucas, in regards to the service you proposed, there are sites out there like that right now for free. The only problem is youre presented a view of the world through the lens of what they're selling and I'm not talking tangible good. It's A LOT of work to truly understand what's happening in this day in age and it's ironic given the power of the internet. There's just so much BS, so much laziness and so much biased journalism that you need to look at many places to get the true vision. Most of us don't have time for that, I know I don't.

I find the best journalism is at the local level. It's seems in more cases no nonsense and to the point. I just want the facts when it comes to news. I can form my own opinion. I'm a big boy.

It's a shame even politics has turned into Kardashian-level news. The GOP news that gets the most coverage has nothing to do with policies and it's all just "Marco Rubio says Trump has a small penis." Or "Trump says his penis is not small." It's gotten to the point where media coverage that sells in politics is deciding presidents, and it's really starting to become a scary thought. There's a good chance that the candidate with the most coverage will win the presidency and the shit-show that is Donald Trump's campaign is currently it.

That's why I think journalism is dying. News that informs you doesn't sell anymore. Maybe it's always been this way and I'm just too young to know, but it shouldn't be this hard to find hard-hitting journalism.