This morning saw an internet free-for-all as savvy browsers flocked to a blog that was flouting the paywall and positing articles written by Times journalist Caitlin Moran. There was even a Twitter account set up to direct readers to the site.
The Times response to the situation was to have the blog taken down immediately (the Twitter account has also vanished) while Moran’s tweeted the rogue blogger: “I applaud you, my friend. Very quietly, but I applaud you.”
Moran’s reaction may seem surprising, she was essentially biting the hand that feeds her. Despite having written in the past about why we should pay for online news content (and keep journalists in jobs), Moran is the first to alert her 71000 followers via Twitter when the Times paywall fails – and it often does. After the paper reinstated its subscription barrier following a crash she typed: “The paywall’s back up now. Feel a bit sad. *quiet voice* I wish I had more readers.”
Moran is not the only Times journalist to voice her opposition to the paywall in what seems to be a growing hostility towards this business model. This exclusion of readership goes against the principles held by the journalists, a belief at odds with those of their employers. And this is not simply a Times phenomenon, nor only a British one. A similar occurrence is taking place across the pond.
Today the New York Times fully implemented it’s own paywall. At a jaw-dropping cost of $40m the paper is evidently adhering to the idea that one has to spend money to make money. There were attempts to breach the paywall, primarily through social media as Twitter and Facebook links allowed readers to bypass the subscription service. As with the Moran infringement, a Twitter account (@freenyt) was created with the intention of posting links to every article published by the NYT. This was swiftly dealt with by the paper.
To many paywalls seem to contrast with the ideology of the internet: unprecedented access to information. Newspapers stress that they must charge for online news in order to sustain their business but opponents question the morale of excluding readers, particularly when content used to be freely accessible (and still is with the majority of publications).
It cannot yet be said whether or not a paywall provides a viable business model in the long term.
Something about job cuts in journalism, plummeting circulation figures of ‘physical’ newspapers, world is changing – do we need to accept that news will one day be online instead of on paper and will this mean a rise in pay-per-view news sites?
The migration to online news consumption has had a derimental effect on both jobs and sales of physical news. Circulation figures are falling by the week while online readership grows in proportion. With this pattern set to continue long-term is it right or wrong to assume newspapers will sacrifice their print editions and focus solely online? If and when this happens, will this lead to further news outlets adopting a pay-per-view system, and will people accept that they have to pay for news?
Tags: caitlin moran, Media, new york times, newspapers, paywall, the Times
Posted in Latest Media Training News | No Comments »
Leave a Reply