As a journalist, I'm very concerned at how things are going. I'm caught between being paid for my writing in a magazine, to the stuff I do for free on the net (blogs, forums and so on). I set up my first website in 1994 with news, run partly as a hobby, which is no different to the bloggers doing it now - mostly for free. I write on here, and elsewhere, and so do you - but we're not paid. In a way, much of what we say is more valid than the traditional press on any given subject, but we still need the mainstream media. When MJ died, after 7/7, 9/11 and anything else that happens in the future - I bet people will turn to TV and the papers, and not just rely on refreshing a website page for updates.
Monetisation is the golden word; and few succeed online (and even fewer can maintain a revenue stream long term as more and more sites set up). Even big sites have given the impression they're doing well, to attract advertising and even venture capital - but then it has become clear they were rather creative with the truth, and the sites fail. Some make money selling their site with a supposed-value before it happens, and I guess we should say 'good for them' but how does this help us in the future?
I can see why papers are worried that they're producing mostly decent editorial and run the risk of cutting back on staff and having to work in an environment where people expect things for free; and it is a bold step to start charging for news today. In a way, I hope it works as the bloggers are often doing things for fun, then move on - many hoping to actually get a paid-for job as a real journalist.
There's also the problem of traditional print and television media reporting news, and the bloggers that report on it and give their opinions. Often with the benefit of getting inside information, on account of being privy to more information than the average newspaper may get. That's because many blogs are very specialist, and instead of reading a paper covering many subjects, the reader simply jumps from site to site.
If everything goes as it does, we'll lose the papers and independent television stations and it will be the BBC that keeps going, producing quality editorial on the web - because we will be paying through the licence fee.
Where does it end in 5 or 10 years? I sometimes wonder whether the Government will be forced to increase the fee, or share the licence fee, with other forms of media - or perhaps place a tax on any device (phone, netbook, PDA, MID etc) that can get access to media, whether news, music or video. Then we get the truly free environment we supposedly want, but with some money going to those who create the media we want to download for free.
Otherwise we simply expect advertisers to fund it all - and that's incredibly naive as people will always be one step ahead on how to avoid seeing all the ads. Even if you end up with loads of ads on your browser and can't stop them, there's still no chance that anyone will click on them anyway.
And you know what? Even I don't buy newspapers - and just take the free ones (Metro, London paper, London Lite) and maybe the ES when it's given out free after 8/9pm. So, even I am helping to ensure the death of paid for content.
