> What people paid for was for the businesses to pay for their own costs and make enough of a profit to keep going
Huh? What are you talking about?
People don't pay for online publishing because it mostly sucks, and you can get the same quality from shitty blogs. If anything, people stopped paying only because they now feel they've got screwed multiple times over.
For instance ... I'm paying for my cable TV and for my newspaper, not to mention a national tax for public radio ... and yet commercials are being shoved down my throat constantly, not to mention the mediocre content being offered.
True journalism is dead ... mass-media intentionally focused on quick-sells like scandals, shock and awe campaigns or celebs news (like Paris Hilton's latest fart).
They've also trained their customers to look for such subjects ... because frivolous subjects are cheaper to write and easier to find.
Now who's to blame that they've got themselves into a corner because a wet-behind-the-ears teenager with a shitty blog can deliver the same poor quality?
It's also too late to change course because the average attention span of a reader has only gotten worse and now people can't stand reading thoughtful articles.
Regarding the quote you referenced, that's just a fact of business. What consumers pay for is the cost and profit margins of the company in question. What they receive in exchange is content.
So you're saying that you honestly, in your heart of hearts believe that the BBC, Times Online, Telegraph, and Guardian have the same quality of journalism as a bad blog?
I find that hard to believe. I think if that's really your stance, you're more likely reciting the platitudes of the day.
Now there are publications that focus on things like that, and that should die. For instance, the Sun, Daily Mail and so on. The sooner they die off the better. But that doesn't mean that there's not still good journalism out there. It's just a smaller ratio of the total content in the public domain, as the amount of really bad stuff has swelled.
Think of the beer market if you'd like another example. There's a shitload of really crap "beer" out there. On the other hand, there's a smaller number of really good beers. However, you have to ignore the stuff that's appealing to the lowest common denominator (the Sun and Daily Mail and crappy blogs) to be able to find the real gems (the BBC etc...)
Huh? What are you talking about?
People don't pay for online publishing because it mostly sucks, and you can get the same quality from shitty blogs. If anything, people stopped paying only because they now feel they've got screwed multiple times over.
For instance ... I'm paying for my cable TV and for my newspaper, not to mention a national tax for public radio ... and yet commercials are being shoved down my throat constantly, not to mention the mediocre content being offered.
True journalism is dead ... mass-media intentionally focused on quick-sells like scandals, shock and awe campaigns or celebs news (like Paris Hilton's latest fart).
They've also trained their customers to look for such subjects ... because frivolous subjects are cheaper to write and easier to find.
Now who's to blame that they've got themselves into a corner because a wet-behind-the-ears teenager with a shitty blog can deliver the same poor quality? It's also too late to change course because the average attention span of a reader has only gotten worse and now people can't stand reading thoughtful articles.
It sure sucks to be them.