tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7626245281158515152.post4801155678296647454..comments2023-11-29T12:46:44.573+00:00Comments on Oxford Road Writers: Journo's Journal: The Value of WordsGraeme Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14139244877613067707noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7626245281158515152.post-59501009443038323702013-12-07T14:29:01.651+00:002013-12-07T14:29:01.651+00:00Agree with this!Agree with this!James Dawsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04326722720189448276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7626245281158515152.post-1428682227578697432013-12-07T14:27:27.770+00:002013-12-07T14:27:27.770+00:00The Times' readership has sharply decreased as...The Times' readership has sharply decreased as a result of the paywall, and there hasn't been a huge financial pay-off. I think the paywall has been in effect for long enough for it to be termed a failure.<br /><br />I think art galleries draw a good parallel with journalism: the public has an expectation that they shouldn't have to pay to see art and it's therefore hard to get them to pay. The quality of art in a private gallery is more than likely going to be of a similar level to that of in a public gallery, so personally faced with a choice between what gallery to visit- besides for reasons of taste- I and almost everybody else would rather take the free option.<br /><br />Journalism is different to film, theatre and concerts in that it's not a collaborative medium that requires weeks of time, money, space and equipment to produce. The quality of an article is reliant almost entirely on the writer, therefore it's possible for writers to produce good-quality articles cheaply, and if they're willing to distribute them for free then it devalues everybody else.<br /><br />Wikipedia isn't dubious, it's systems of editing and moderation are reliable and because it's fee it contains more information than comparable encyclopaedia. Paying for something doesn't necessarily make it more reliable (see the whole Encyclopaedia Britannica vs Wikipedia experiment).James Dawsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04326722720189448276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7626245281158515152.post-63018247294334868872013-12-07T14:24:19.791+00:002013-12-07T14:24:19.791+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.James Dawsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04326722720189448276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7626245281158515152.post-60742758926562125332013-12-07T13:18:49.527+00:002013-12-07T13:18:49.527+00:00If the Murdoch paywall has been a failure, why do ...If the Murdoch paywall has been a failure, why do the Times & Sunday Times websites have over 250 000 subscribers? <br /><br />On the final point, UK art galleries are a crude example as they are subsidised by the tax payer, so as a tax payer I did in fact pay something. I also paid last time I went to the cinema, a music concert, the theatre, bought a book etc ad nauseam. Did you not? <br /><br />As for Wikipedia, that's the ultimate example of why freely available material is dangerous, because it is open to abuse & can be edited by anybody. I'd rather pay a few pounds for reliable information than take dubious content for free.Graeme Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14139244877613067707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7626245281158515152.post-82082218888760828642013-12-07T13:09:16.967+00:002013-12-07T13:09:16.967+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Graeme Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14139244877613067707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7626245281158515152.post-39833346854087319722013-12-07T13:07:15.874+00:002013-12-07T13:07:15.874+00:00Here's another view: http://www.nytimes.com/20...Here's another view: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/opinion/sunday/slaves-of-the-internet-unite.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2Graeme Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14139244877613067707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7626245281158515152.post-80846970639984236972013-12-07T12:53:51.663+00:002013-12-07T12:53:51.663+00:00I understand why you make the argument you do, but...I understand why you make the argument you do, but I disagree with it and I think it's largely driven by wishful thinking on your part. Newspapers, magazines and blogs have been offering high quality writing for free for too long, the audience expect not to pay and it's near impossible for them to change their view. You didn't acknowledge so called 'Rupert Murdoch fightback' has been a failure because you can get a similar quality of articles on other newspaper websites for free.<br /><br />The general public is longer willing to pay, moving forward I think revenues are going to have to be generated through online advertising and other revenue streams that allow readers to access the site without paying. That said I think there might still be a market to sell niche publications, where no free to read alternative exists: perhaps Basketball Magazine is an example of this? <br /><br />I don't think being able to access content for free necessarily means not paying writers, writers deserve to be paid, especially as any content they write for a website will generate revenue for that website through advertisements. There are problems with websites exploiting writers for free labour which can only be countered if writers refuse to accept that their work has no value/ the 'it'll improve your portfolio' lie and demand payment (I don't think there's an chance of this happening but it'd be nice if it did).<br /><br />On the general point of art/words being better if you pay for it. What did you pay the last time you went to a gallery? What did you last pay the last time you read and article on the Guardian website or Vice or a Wikipedia article? James Dawsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04326722720189448276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7626245281158515152.post-79512084348662107842013-12-06T19:19:27.917+00:002013-12-06T19:19:27.917+00:00Have to disagree. Anyone doing anything has got to...Have to disagree. Anyone doing anything has got to be pretty good to get anyone else to appreciate their work........irrespective of whether of whether it's been paid for.......accept that paying customers will be much more demanding for value for their money. <br /><br />At the other extreme there are the absolute fortunes (largely untaxed) that high profile celebrity authors, artists and musicians get. Then there's the murdoch and daily mail type press - written by journalists with solely their own, their proprietors, and the Tories interests, in mind...... and heart.grsnoreply@blogger.com