It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by stanguilles7
Has it? What specific online 'competition' are you thinking of? Can you name some?
Originally posted by CodeRed3D
Originally posted by stanguilles7
Has it? What specific online 'competition' are you thinking of? Can you name some?
The competition is the singular medium of the Internet. Local news is now world news. That paradigm will take the destruction of a two generations of people and most of their technology to undo.
How many newspapers can you read in one day? Are you going to purchase subscriptions of all the ones you have access to over the Internet? It is highly likely the majority of the populous will gravitate towards news offering the best content under a certain measure of trust.
If a news source is having hard fiscal times, it is the editor in chief that is directly responsible. Any questions about that, just review the sender of the mail stacked on their desk. Review the email the chief has tagged important. Longevity has never been about the business model.
Originally posted by stanguilles7
Again, if NEWS (not aggregating) organizations that want to charge for content will be squeezed out by ones that offer free info, can you site some examples of these 'free' news sites you are referring to?
I suspect you think news aggregate sites like Drudge or HuffPo are news sites. They arent. They dont generate content. They recycle it.
Originally posted by CodeRed3D
When free news is readably available via news aggregators, the general public has better insight on telling fact from fiction. Unfortunately, when just a few companies control the majority of media output, it is all but the most liberal minds who see the fallacy.
Originally posted by stanguilles7
Here's where you get it wrong. News aggregate sites dont pay writers. They dont even pay their sources. They collect actual news from actual news sites and collect it on their website, so they can get ad dollars, by directing readers AWAY from actual news sites, onto their sites.
Originally posted by TruthSeekerMike
Most news stories, alternative or not originate from wire service reporters or newspaper reporters. The it get disseminated online. If the wire services and newspapers can't pay people to go around and do the job of reporting, then there's no one to freely disseminate news from. I see his point, if the bulk of news comes from a source that most people don't get their news from, that sounds unsustainable to me.
Originally posted by Jedimind
This just shows the mindset of the wealthy, controlling elite. Instead of seeing the wealth of free information online as a good thing, he calls it 'unsustainable' and of course wants to nickel and dime us. Also, note that online news sites are already getting get lots of revenue from advertising which is plastered all over news stories.
It's simple supply and demand. People are slowly moving away from the garbage that is mainstream propaganda newspapers with obvious disgusting agendas of tyranny, bigger government, and fear and moving towards blogs, forums, podcasts, radio shows, sites like ats, and drudge report which provide fair and balanced information and no fee upfront.
I actually owe much of my recent political education to the commenters of articles online. They usually provide much more insight and truth than the actual article does. With any mainstream online paper, there's almost a guarantee that the author of an article has some sort of agenda that they're pedaling but people are catching on to the way that they 'make' the news instead of 'reporting' the news.
People are free to charge what they want for a service or product, but I just suspect that there's more to the story here in terms of control of information, consolidation of control of so many papers by so few, etcedit on 24-5-2012 by Jedimind because: add missing word
Originally posted by stanguilles7
Originally posted by Maxmars
I am not among those who believe that there is no difference between making a living and making a killing. No one "needs" work for free... and no one "needs" to become obscenely wealthy. Compensation implies balance. It is the present imbalance that makes for the loss of sustainability.
What is the present imbalance you speak of, specifically?
Which specific aspects of a news room should be forced to curtail their compensation? Who in the online news world or publication world should be taking the hit, in your opinion?
Originally posted by randomname
news print is sustainable, it has been for over 200 years.
but add greed to the mix, and then it makes sense to deliver heavily ad spammed web versions of their paper, with little sustenance, content and overhead.