Warren Buffett Says Free News Unsustainable

Warren Buffett Says Free News Unsustainable

www.bloomberg.com

“This is an unsustainable model and certain of our papers are already making progress in moving to something that makes more sense,” Buffett wrote in a letter to editors and publishers of Berkshire’s daily newspapers. “We want your best thinking as we work out the blend of digital and print that will attract both the audience and the revenue we need.”

(visit the link for the full news article)

A few years ago many people were angry with large corporations buying up most of the commercial radio stations. On the eve of amazing online news aggregation technology and talented curators like Matt Drudge, the public around the world has amazing access to relavant news. Is the current model sustainable?

I would like to make the argument that the reason most papers are losing readership is not for lack of on-line presence. Most people are tired of the propaganda disseminated by harlotized media.

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.

Mr. Buffett can buy all the papers he wants, but I foresee his current rhetoric as unsustainable. The cat's already out of the bag.

www.bloomberg.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

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.

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, etc

reply to post by CodeRed3D



I think you are confusing the point. He isn't saying newspapers will replace Drudge. He's saying that news sources have to be profitable, or at the very least not lose money, if they are running a news organization, be it NYTImes or Drudge or Breitbart or HuffPo. If one can get it just from advertising, great. But many, many news sources (not aggregate sites like HuffPo and for a large part, drudge and blaze and others) are now discovering they cant just pay the bills with ads, and are experimenting with pay walls.

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by CodeRed3D

 

I think you are confusing the point. He isn't saying newspapers will replace Drudge. He's saying that news sources have to be profitable, or at the very least not lose money, if they are running a news organization, be it NYTImes or Drudge or Breitbart or HuffPo. If one can get it just from advertising, great. But many, many news sources (not aggregate sites like HuffPo and for a large part, drudge and blaze and others) are now discovering they cant just pay the bills with ads, and are experimenting with pay walls.

To say that free news is unsustainable is one thing. Warren Buffet confused the issue himself by following up that rhetoric with buying out numerous sources used in on-line news aggregators. That makes no sense at all - that is of course he is purposely being misleading.

When Mr. Buffet introduces the pay walls, search engines and news aggregators will be less effective, thereby limiting your power to disseminate truth. News curators won't be able to cite articles that are subscription content either.

Mr. Buffet's own words are, "Our future depends on remaining the primary source of information in certain subjects of great importance to our readers." I may be reading between the lines, but I'm sure you see where this is going.

it seems like he means the newspapers can't continue as paper only, they are going to have to go online

didn't they all do that years ago ?

reply to post by CodeRed3D


Yes, it is clear to me you will see what you want, regardless of it's actual presence.

reply to post by CodeRed3D
I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of the general public's awareness of the propaganda being pushed by today's large media sources. A big part of what seems to always be missed is the fear of exponentially growing technology. Look at the USPS for example. It's virtually on life support. It's an archaic idea that is being pushed to the brink with the development of information technology. We don't really need the USPS any more. They only keep it around for the employment it provides. Thus, we are being taught to fear technology, rather than embracing it. This concept expands much further than newspapers and snail mail as well.In my perception Buffett is just trying to justify his actions when he attempts to corner the market he is currently losing control of. So when he begins to charge for information that is normally free, he can now claim free information is unsustainable. Now we can start to attempt to put legislation in place to ensure nobody is going to be putting out that info for free. Almost like anti piracy. Maybe I'm wrong. Time will tell, it always does.

At the end of the day, every business needs to take in more than it spends or it closes its doors.

We all can add our own spin, but look at a place like ATS: when reporting something in breaking news, it still has to track back somehow to some kind of "mainstream" news item to be considered fair play. If they aren't getting us to pay with advertising attention and time, they'll have to try some other way to get us to pay. Its that simple, Buffett is correct on a fundamental level.

Originally posted by silent thunder
..At the end of the day, every business needs to take in more than it spends or it closes its doors.

We all can add our own spin, but look at a place like ATS: when reporting something in breaking news, it still has to track back somehow to some kind of "mainstream" news item to be considered fair play. If they aren't getting us to pay with advertising attention and time, they'll have to try some other way to get us to pay. Its that simple, Buffett is correct on a fundamental level...

But they are getting us to pay with advertising attention and time. Mainstreams news online sources always have tons of ads, pop ups, etc.

Originally posted by Jedimind

Originally posted by silent thunder
..At the end of the day, every business needs to take in more than it spends or it closes its doors.

We all can add our own spin, but look at a place like ATS: when reporting something in breaking news, it still has to track back somehow to some kind of "mainstream" news item to be considered fair play. If they aren't getting us to pay with advertising attention and time, they'll have to try some other way to get us to pay. Its that simple, Buffett is correct on a fundamental level...

But they are getting us to pay with advertising attention and time. Mainstreams news online sources always have tons of ads, pop ups, etc.

Have you ever bought anything from online advertising and do you consider it effective?

I've been online more or less constantly every day for coming up on a decade now. I've probably bought stuff from ads maybe two or three times total in all those years.

Originally posted by Jedimind


But they are getting us to pay with advertising attention and time. Mainstreams news online sources always have tons of ads, pop ups, etc.

And online ads arent paying the bills. Even with all those pop ups and whatnot. It takes a lot of money to run an actual newspaper, as opposed to an aggregate site like ATS or HuffPo or Drudge.

Poor Warren.... he would have been correct if he had finished his little verbal equation ...

"Warren Buffett Says Free News Unsustainable if goal is anything other than to inform"

Commerce hijacked the press as a social institution and has only succeeded in proving that the press is supposed to be reasonably free from the agenda of self-enrichment or it will become ineffectual and counterproductive to society.

Originally posted by Maxmars


Commerce hijacked the press as a social institution and has only succeeded in proving that the press is supposed to be reasonably free from the agenda of self-enrichment or it will become ineffectual and counterproductive to society.

Can you point to a time when commerce wasn't part of the equation in distributing news?

Even The Federalist Papers needed a financier or two.

Are you suggesting writers, editors, and publishers all work for free?

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by Jedimind


But they are getting us to pay with advertising attention and time. Mainstreams news online sources always have tons of ads, pop ups, etc.

And online ads arent paying the bills. Even with all those pop ups and whatnot. It takes a lot of money to run an actual newspaper, as opposed to an aggregate site like ATS or HuffPo or Drudge.

You're right, for the most part online ads don't bring in tons of money. You need to generate a lot of traffic to make it worthwhile. You're also correct in the high cost it takes to run a media corporation. The problem is the market for actual printable news is diminishing. Why run out and buy a newspaper, or have it delivered when you can find the information you seek digitally?I don't have an issue with news sources charging for information digitally, but what happens when big corporate interests can't completely corner the market as they would like? They're going to start lobbying to have legislation put in place to control who gets to put what information out and when. It's about money, always has been, always will be.

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by Maxmars


Commerce hijacked the press as a social institution and has only succeeded in proving that the press is supposed to be reasonably free from the agenda of self-enrichment or it will become ineffectual and counterproductive to society.

Can you point to a time when commerce wasn't part of the equation in distributing news?

Even The Federalist Papers needed a financier or two.

Are you suggesting writers, editors, and publishers all work for free?

Not at all. But the Internet has brought a whole new level to the competition. Making the publications less accessible won't help their bottom line. As soon as the contribution is gone, so is the readership.

None of them can hide biased reporting under a subscription model and claim sustainability.

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by Maxmars


Commerce hijacked the press as a social institution and has only succeeded in proving that the press is supposed to be reasonably free from the agenda of self-enrichment or it will become ineffectual and counterproductive to society.

Can you point to a time when commerce wasn't part of the equation in distributing news?

Even The Federalist Papers needed a financier or two.

Are you suggesting writers, editors, and publishers all work for free?

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.

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 CodeRed3D


Not at all. But the Internet has brought a whole new level to the competition. Making the publications less accessible won't help their bottom line. As soon as the contribution is gone, so is the readership.

Has it? What specific online 'competition' are you thinking of? Can you name some?

None of them can hide biased reporting under a subscription model and claim sustainability.

Purple Monkey Dishwasher Pajamas.