Murdoch’s Paywall at the London Times: More Monday Morning Quarterbacking
Today it started to cost me four dollars a week to keep a clean conscience. No, I’m not giving to the Church. I’m paying money to read the news (gasp!). Yes, after praising Rupert Murdoch’s scheme to keep money flowing through the journalism industry, I’ve subscribed to the London Times online.
I remember being a kid and going to the supermarket with my Dad on Saturday. Because it was a popular shopping day, the store would offer lots of free food samples; because I was a kid, I would take them. I was never enticed to buy the food because I didn’t have any money. In fact, the imperative phrase, “Put your money where your mouth is,” meant nothing to me because I didn’t own a cent. Alas, though my desires still outstrip my income, a little income I do have.
Yes, producing news costs money; yes, if you value reading a newspaper, you should pay for it. What little dough it takes to access the wealth of information in a newspaper should be a fair trade. The only reason the Times’ online traffic has dropped by a reported 90% since it put its content behind a paywall is because, as Murdoch says, the industry “fell asleep”.
The admiration I have for Murdoch’s paywall scheme, which thankfully I don’t see as tied to his general outlook on news production, isn’t diminished at all by the decrease in traffic to the Times’ website. In fact, not only am I smugly acting on principle by paying for the Times, but I now have access to a world of secret and elite news which I already value more because I pay for it.
You can see for yourself in this November interview that Murdoch knew he would lose traffic, but he also realizes (at 2:30):
“The fact is, there isn’t enough advertising in the world to make all websites profitable. We’d rather have fewer people coming to our website, but paying.”
And I hope the Times will be able to attract some advertisers based on the fact that they have a market of people who actually spend money.
Indeed if newspapers, or the flow of information generally, is important to our democracy, then hopefully people will start putting a value on that information. Conversely, perhaps it’s because people don’t value information that our national politics have been in a very precarious situation for going on a decade.
Upstreamism advocate Rishi Manchanda calls us to understand health not as a "personal responsibility" but a "common good."
- Upstreamism tasks health care professionals to combat unhealthy social and cultural influences that exist outside — or upstream — of medical facilities.
- Patients from low-income neighborhoods are most at risk of negative health impacts.
- Thankfully, health care professionals are not alone. Upstreamism is increasingly part of our cultural consciousness.
It marks a major shift in the government's battle against the opioid crisis.
- The nation's sixth-largest drug distributor is facing criminal charges related to failing to report suspicious drug orders, among other things.
- It marks the first time a drug company has faced criminal charges for distributing opioids.
- Since 1997, nearly 222,000 Americans have died from prescription opioids, partly thanks to unethical doctors who abuse the system.
A new study shows that some men's reaction to sex is not what you'd expect, resulting in a condition previously observed in women.
The real Game of Thrones might be who best leverages the hit HBO show to shape political narratives.
- Sen. Elizabeth Warren argues that Game of Thrones is primarily about women in her review of the wildly popular HBO show.
- Warren also touches on other parallels between the show and our modern world, such as inequality, political favoritism of the elite, and the dire impact of different leadership styles on the lives of the people.
- Her review serves as another example of using Game of Thrones as a political analogy and a tool for framing political narratives.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.