Starting a new chapter in the way we digest our news through charging for it online is the latest way being thought of to boost newspaper revenues.
Is this a viable option that will give scope for better pay for journalists, or just another way to create income and make us pay for something that has been free since newspapers took their work online?
It isn’t hard to believe that the newspaper industry would be one of the primary sufferers of the recent financial meltdown, as their revenue budgets decline through advertisers tightening their yearly budgets and choosing to advertise in more cost effective ways.
Most recently Rupert Murdoch proprietor of News Corp and whose newspaper portfolio includes The Sun, The Times, The News of the World and The Sunday Times, has announced that he may be charging customers for online content.
Will this now mean that other Newspapers such as The Guardian, Daily Mail and The Independent will soon have no option but to follow suit or will they first sit back and see how this situation plays out?
Of course Mr Murdoch is no stranger to setting benchmarks in the industry; in the 1980s he turned Fleet Street on its head by moving the headquarters of his newspapers to an industrial estate in Wapping after disputes with trade unions. They are still based there today, setting a precedent that was soon followed by other news organisations.
One major problem for News Corp and all other newspapers is the BBC which has a globally established website funded by the taxpayer. The BBC definitely skews the marketplace as it holds all the cards at the present time.
It doesn’t rely on advertising at all for its revenue – and it has a guaranteed fixed income which in present times is looked upon with envy.
On the other hand, funding for the majority of newspapers comes through advertising and as newspapers find that they cannot push up their cover price anymore they will look to move online and will find the preponderant force of the BBC with its colossal funding an impossible foe to challenge.
The BBC has an estimated 180 million a year budget to spend on its news gathering, which is more than the rest of its competing news organisations combined.
The problem lies in the fact that anyone with a TV licence in this country already pays for their news, a small proportion purported to be around seven pounds per licence fee payer, goes towards funding the BBC’s regional, national and online news which is one of the most respected, updated and popular sites in the world.
The BBC hasn’t done anything wrong. On the contrary it has been told to up its game and use the new media on offer which it has done considerably well. Recent opinion polls have suggested that the BBC licence fee is fair for what is offered, and it now feels that it is being rounded upon for doing things too well.
James Murdoch, Rupert’s son and heir apparent, recently talked on the subject at the Edinburgh Television Awards ceremony saying:
“Dumping free, state sponsored journalism on the marketplace makes it hard for journalism to flourish on the internet. Yet it is essential for the future of independent digital journalism that a fair price can be charged for people who value it.”
Here is an example of trying to intentionally confuse his audience by saying the BBC is state sponsored, he is suggesting that the BBC is run by the government, even though the raison d’être of the BBC is to be independent and offer opinion from all viewpoints.
For any change to become successful it is necessary to first understand the people whose lives it would impact upon, the people who make the news from the local regional journalist all the way up to the writers and social commentators of the major newspapers.
Mark Thompson Director General of the BBC said recently at a meeting of BBC staff:
“We need to pick our fights, and responding to every attack will not win us any friends. We need to ensure that we continue to provide the quality and the content that license fee payers want. This is a moment to keep our nerve.”
The BBC will continue to be under attack from those who want to make
money in journalism. Even if the BBC was out of the equation, newspapers (for example) are fighting a losing battle against many other free online news providers.
It could be said that politicians and other journalists take every opportunity to highlight the difficulties for their organisations and attack the BBC’s comfortable fixed income.
If this subject wasn’t highlighted by the media mogul Rupert Murdoch in the first instance, would there be more scope for this argument to go further?
For if it wasn’t Murdoch who chose to be the first newspaper owner to charge for online content would this not be thought of as a saving grace for the fledgling newspaper industry, and not just another way of making more money for his business portfolio.
This could be a chance for better journalism on the whole, as paying for real news stories not just the churnalism that is being created by a lot of daily’s at this present time could create a more open and free press writing about important topical issues.
This also begs the question that if you’re producing serious journalism with the best social commentators, why should it be given away for free.
Will there be sympathy or will we be just left with the question of how we ensure quality journalism in the commercial sector in the future.
So as the tide retreats and we see the impact that the global recession has had on us all, looking into ways in which people would be prepared to pay for on demand news would be interesting, but might the result just be that, in the way water always finds the easiest route, people will always find free news.