Reader Voices: Who Pays for Content?

As newspapers and other print publications shrink while the webosphere grows ever larger, will the quality of content available to us all get better or worse? Ever since I raised that question in my comments about InfoWorld ceasing its print publication (see “Out of Print”), readers have been sharing some very interesting thoughts on the subject with me.

“You make a very good point, a point about which I have been concerned,” wrote one reader. “Publications — whether in print or online — must have content and the content must be authoritative. Why else would anyone take the time to read anything? Blogs are fine but blogs are essentially opinions of individuals. Citizen reporters are usually not trained to report accurately, and there is no way to tell if an article is accurate, biased, or fraudulent unless there is a news organization backing the article to certify/check for accuracy. The NY Times or the Wall Street Journal would have little value if it contained nothing but opinion columns and commentaries. We need hard news–whether it be about politics or computers or the entertainment industry. If the current trend continues to downsize and minimize authoritative content, I am afraid that future Americans will read only opinions, commentaries and musings.”

If you’re going to have authoritative content, doesn’t someone have to foot the bill? “Yup, that one’s been puzzling me ever since the time I started doing most of my own news reading on the web,” wrote another reader. “Most of the best web news sites are parasites on some print publication. The few that aren’t — Salon, for example — usually have small budgets and similarly small staffs. AP wire copy shows up all over the Web, and I assume most of the sites that use it pay for it. But if we wind up with no news but what AP delivers from its staff reporters, where does that leave us? Has anyone — E&P or Poynter or CJR, maybe? — done a good survey of how print-plus-Web publications are approaching the question of who pays the reporters? Is anyone onto a good formula?”

Many readers were concerned about the point that the Googles and Yahoos get much of the ad revenue without producing the content. “I couldn’t agree with you more,” wrote another reader. “The web has no editor — we look at personal blogs for medical advice, computer advice, and what televisions to buy. Yet there is no responsibility nor is there any accountability for the information that is published there. Where do you go to find reliable information? Do you Yahoo or Google it? The Internet is vast and like e-mail — meaning unfortunately that most of it is garbage.”

The disappearance of print publications could have some other long-term consequences. “The issue of web publishing vs hard copy publishing, and the distribution of advertising income to those who do not provide original content, is of utmost interest,” wrote another reader. “I enjoy model trains as a hobby. Since my retirement, I’ve seen several publications either cease publication or reduce the number of pages that they do print. As you say, it’s a matter of how the advertising dollar is allocated. I’m also concerned about its long-term availability and the costs for access. I’ve been able to assemble a complete set of Model Railroader magazines from 1950 to the present date. I could assemble this collection because hard copies of the early issues are still available — albeit via second hand copies – at various flea markets and hobby shops. I’ve paid for this information once. I can access it as often as I want and there is no ongoing access charges. The web-based publishing model with its ongoing charges for information access scares me.”

Some readers did see at least some reason for hope. “As I see the shrinking trade press and the decreasing revenue trends for newspapers, and as I watch the transformation of what used to be regarded as the national television news into a simple-minded entertainment medium, I am a little worried,” wrote one reader. “But I’m hopeful that there are some countervailing forces. NPR, for example, as a subscription-based entity, is well-placed to prosper as people realize we can rely less and less on the mainstream media to give us the information we need. Intelligent bloggers like TalkingPointsMemo, which has shed a great deal of light on the US Attorney sacking story, occasionally raises money from readers (recently, something like 2000 people contributed in two days) over and above the advertising revenue from the web site. As for the trade press, I’m not sure how this will play out. I guess it remains to be seen how the web-based advertising will support the kind of reporting we’d like to see, or whether there’ll be more subscription-based alternatives.”

Others, however, are less optimistic. “I recently attended a presentation by the editor of a metropolitan newspaper, and he echoed much of what you said,” wrote one reader. “He talked about the content issue and related how the now main news sources that we have our merely repeaters of what newspapers have discovered and printed. What I know to be true is that if there is no one investigating, gathering, sorting out fact from fiction, and if all the sources are just relying on each other, then democracy as we know it will no longer exist. What makes me say that is while the news reporting industry is making a shift, those at the political level with less than honorable intentions are not. They will flourish. There will be no one to report on them. Most severely will be that which affects us the most – the local newspaper. The local politicians will have a field day with the demise of the newspaper and its reporters. And lastly, it leaves the citizen with nowhere to turn. No one to listen. And it will be, and probably is, too late.”

What’s your opinion? Create a little unpaid web content yourself by posting your comments on my website, or write me at Foster@gripe2ed.com.

Read and post comments about this story here.