Item — HN Reader

Not true. NYT makes most of its money from ads, but also from archives, content licensing (Amazon etc), indexing, and things like online crosswords.

Second, you might get it first on Twitter or whatever but you wont always know until later if its true, the context, and the other side of the story. Twitter wins for earthquake in Haiti but if a General is shot in Thailand I need to know more about the what, who, why, where the than some dude I never heard of is shot.

My 2 cents

1 comments

Well, just to be clear, my point isn't that the NYT doesn't create value -- they absolutely do. My point is that the paywall won't work. It's a band-aid at best when they need a tourniquette. The only thing they'll achieve is to further remove themselves from the conversation. People just aren't going to start paying for news -- at least not enough of them to make a difference.

I'm not by any means rooting for the collapse of the NYT. But we're living through a revolution, and survival is going to require bigger thinking than paywalls.

I actually agree with you that the paywall will fail. Trying to get a lot of people to pay a set amount for news will yield less money than getting a limited number of people to donate an unlimited amount for news; that is, non-profit journalism. The latter is the most likely endgame, and being a part of it is pretty interesting.

http://www.texastribune.org

If you agree that the New York Times creates value, I don't understand why you're hesitant to support them as you mentioned in your initial comment.

Well, I'll borrow your phrase: They're charging people to see ads. They can have it one way or the other, but not both. It's the same reason I can't abide advertisments at the movie theater. The value that the Times creates is a little like free food in Vegas. The food may be wholesome and nutritious, but there's an alterior motive, and charging standard rates for it would yield less money for the casino in the long run. Also, that the paywall kicks in only for the most devoted readers really turns me off.

As far as non-profit journalism, I'm all for it. I would absolutely donate to a news outfit I felt was fighting the good fight. NP-journalism is forward-thinking. My only concern is that journalists' integrity not be compromised by their patron's agenda. But I suppose it couldn't be any worse than the current situation, right?

Assurance contract-like (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contract) group funding of journalism is another interesting idea.

Free-agency, decentralization, online markets for stories, and ads are my view of journalism's most likely future.