Shhhh. Newspaper Publishers Are Quietly Holding a Very, Very Important Conclave Today. Will You Soon

This is just another way to control the news that the GP can receive. Rest assured that ATS is going to be blowing away all these money grabbing entities and pave the way for the next revolution of information dissemination (Free) to the news hounds we have all become in the past years.

The future technology of the News Source is at this time ramping up and the last effort grab by the greedy few will soon be over and they know it.

When sites like ours are garnering over a million hits a month by the awakening public, it has become apparent why Police Departments and emergency services are looking to the Internet for the truth and integrity of the world that surrounds them.

The sponsors will in the end be the real difference between how the future technologies evolve and they are trends experts that are prepared in every respect for the new direction of Information Technologies.

it occours to me that the issue is bigger than "people are reading stories online so they ignore papers".
if you're interested in current affairs, getting your news online makes you realise that if you want the full story, newspapers are useless.

you want to check and compare 3 or 4 sources, get the background info on all the players involved, try to decide what's true, whats hype, whats spin and whats editorial opinion and then go to a discussion board to try to garner the insight of your peers and, if you're lucky, a subject expert or two.

newspapers just don't offer the full story, it's as simple as that.

[edit on 29/5/09 by pieman]

reply to post by tristar


Of course I know that

Just saying if that was the route they wanted to go down they would want to rely on something more than tracking cookies, they are too much in the hands of the end user, loads of things you can do about cookies. They would want to implement a standard system across all the news providers.

reply to post by Now_Then


I cannot focus on a single word you wrote, 0 recall, it may have something to do with your avatar which is well within the T@C, but who knows I am still trying to wash my mind of the flow.

Edit, because I even forgot spell check and spelled focus foucus...

[edit on 29-5-2009 by antar]

existing thread here ATS

Although all intentions in reply's to free internet news seem's genuine enough, but i feel about this time i should become the devil's advocate and show who are actually behind this push into the next generation of news on the internet. Apart from our beloved Rupert Murdoch and his golf club members there are many others who support this and have occasionally brought the concept to the main stream media with all guns blazing.

Naturally they are monitoring who is opposing this idea and naturally they have their contingency plans to counter act any such ideas. A quick quote from a person who does not live in your definition or ideology.

When the rest of the publishing world herded to a free model of online news in the 1990s, Gordon Crovitz didn't follow suit. As a former publisher of the Wall Street Journal and journalist with Dow Jones, he was part of the team that decided news on the Web should be paid for.

Now Crovitz, who left as publisher of the Journal when it was purchased by News Corp. in 2007, is trying to help recreate the WSJ success of the paid model for the rest of the publishing world. Together with Steve Brill, founder of Court TV and a number of legal publication, and private equity fund managing partner Leo Hindrey Jr., Crovitz is hoping their company Journalism Online will reshape the Internet landscape and help staunch the revenue bleed from mainstream media.

Named to the 2008 "Silicon Alley 100" last year by Business Insider, he is an adviser to several technology media companies and writes the "Information Age" column for The Wall Street Journal. The following is a conversation Crovitz had with CNN.com.

Crovitz: We are not suggesting that all content be free one day and all content be paid the next -- that won't work. I think it's highly likely that in the coming months that the reader experience on the Web will include a significant amount that is still free.

We're suggesting publishers look at their unique content and decide the kind readers are likely to pay for access. A lot of the content remain free, but not all of it. News publishers will look to find areas of access -- content or otherwise -- to encourage a percentage, maybe 10 percent or so, who will become subscribers.

www.cnn.com...

As you can see the logic seems logic but what who defines logic ?

Paying for a subscripition no longer equates quality. In fact unless it is a medical or space journal it really is not worth the money. I have been duped in the past while researching to 'pay' for subscriptions which I later found on free sites open to any and all.

You know the saying "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all the time."

This would have been a good name for this thread and at their lame duck attempt to keep their wives and daughters in Sable.

The past is past and all they are doing is trying to bring shards of the old into the new.

Originally posted by antar
Paying for a subscripition no longer equates quality. In fact unless it is a medical or space journal it really is not worth the money. I have been duped in the past while researching to 'pay' for subscriptions which I later found on free sites open to any and all.

You know the saying "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all the time."

This would have been a good name for this thread and at their lame duck attempt to keep their wives and daughters in Sable.

The past is past and all they are doing is trying to bring shards of the old into the new.

Would like to add

" There's a sucker born every minute "

This will not stop, they will see it come to pass and with several marketing tricks supported by t.v and radio hype people would then say, wow, that was talked about on "x" site. Slam that into the cerebral cortex several times a day for three months, then you have your subscriptions. Its exactly what pay per view is, but this relates to online content.

reply to post by mrwupy


Well put mrwupy. I remember years ago, when a newspaper I used to work for decided to start charging for web site access to content. Sure they boosted their profits short term, but their otherwise excellent web advertising profits fell sharply as a result of visitor drop. So they took the middle path, charging money for their exclusives only, not for the copy paste stuff that AP wires.

Take a wrong step on this issue and they just make their newspapers even less desired.

Kind regards, M.

reply to post by Manawydan


I could see it as exclusive news breaking story's that would require subscribers which would have access to the are within the particular site.

Well I gave up TV about five years ago now and it did not take me long to get over it. In fact i learned how to play a couple of musical instruments. I refused to be nickled and dimed to death with the ever increasing fees of satellite and cable and I will not be nickled and dimed to death by the internet.

Maybe I will actually become half way decent on my cello after all. I guess I will sign up for a couple of language classes and put in another garden plot. I am curious about doing a let everything grow where it may plot just to see what happens.

I can think of a lot of things I can do with the time that I will not be "spending" on the internet. Yes, I do mean that literally.

Well it certainly does leave room for competition then doesnt it. All the more reason for journalists, both new and those tired of never getting their stories published to start free online papers, with adds to pay for it, and even get some local prints going as well. Pretty hard for the subscription ones to compete with the free ones. Also, the way to up the credibility of online news, including alternative is to get a non-profit award organization that actually credit awards for categories of news including alternative, and also fundraises for scholarship monies and bursaries, and makes its presence known nation wide.

Originally posted by mystiq
Well it certainly does leave room for competition then doesnt it. All the more reason for journalists, both new and those tired of never getting their stories published to start free online papers, with adds to pay for it, and even get some local prints going as well. Pretty hard for the subscription ones to compete with the free ones. Also, the way to up the credibility of online news, including alternative is to get a non-profit award organization that actually credit awards for categories of news including alternative, and also fundraises for scholarship monies and bursaries, and makes its presence known nation wide.

Or they could use a Twitter/Wet Pint type system were people that were actually present or involved can contribute to the piece; including pictures and video.

I do think that before the year ends were all going to hear or read about a major change in online news availability. I guess its only a matter of time before this was going to happen.

I do think that before the year ends were all going to hear or read about a major change in online news availability. I guess its only a matter of time before this was going to happen.

Agree. I also think it will fail and hopefully influence the next wave of free media. At least on the net we can fight them on even terms.

reply to post by shamus78


With the utmost respect to your opinion, i must unfortunately disagree as these are the people who provide the millions of links with news feed back and then it travels down the mountain slope into various other blogs and sites.

However, by making this simple thread aware to the general public is my minor contribution to what we all will be exposed to.

Just so this threads maintains a neutral aspect in respect to my intension ill provide this link for all members and non members

www.onlinenewspapers.com...

Peace.

Hi tristar,

I agree with your point there. I was thinking more in it this could influence the 'home media' type movements going on now (although still in infancy).

Perhaps people would be willing to focus on user-created content rather then pay for mainstream media?

I see it like the youtube revolution a few years ago. Before the technology existed we were stuck with a limited number of options to get information from. Suddenly I could surf youtube (or any of the hundreds of sites like it nowdays) and hear current affairs, global politics and viewpoints without having to encroach upon the mainstream media. I also get to hear viewpoints that aren't covered by the mainstream media.

With text, the blogging sensation has taken over and is mature enough to handle more responsibility with regards to dispersing news and information.

People will always pay for information, but you have a choice as to where your money goes.

Cheer
Shane

Hello Shane,

I am inclined to think that the internet news will be more monitored and acceptable to a particular group who are willing to afford the cost. However, there is a large volume of people who do feel that this will not and cannot happen. I myself feel that this is around corner, well, its not around the corner, its more or less crossing the t's and dotting the i's.

It was more or less expected, as information is power and who ever states otherwise is so far from reality that its equivalent to announcing that the earth does not exist.