David Simon, objectively pro-cartel
No, he's not putting in a good word for the New Day Co-op. Journalist and TV producer David Simon began by calling on the feds to relax the anti-trust laws so that newspapers can collude to put all their content behind pay walls at once. That idea went nowhere. Now Simon has penned an open letter encouraging giant news corporations to simply ignore anti-trust laws:
Most of all, I know that here you are being individually asked to consider taking a bold, risk-laden stand for content—that antitrust considerations prohibit the Times and The Post, not to mention Rupert Murdoch or the other owners, from talking this through and acting in concert. Would that every U.S. newspaper publisher could meet in a bathroom somewhere and talk bluntly for fifteen minutes, this would be a hell of a lot easier. And yes, I know that if one of you should try to go behind the paywall while the other’s content remains free, then, yes, you would be destroyed. All that is apparent.
I can't believe I'm hearing this from an outspoken liberal like David Simon. Especially considering that he's made a career of calling out the toxic influence of Big News on real journalism.
Weakening the anti-trust laws would set a terrible precedent. What happens when the next struggling industry wants a license to team up to squeeze the consumer?
Besides which, an industry-wide pay wall wouldn't help. Most people won't pay for online news, period. Even if they suddenly feel the need, subscriptions were never that lucrative. In the golden age of newspapers, most of the money came from now-obsolete genres of advertising: classifieds and colorful supplements for local department store sales. Papers can still sell ads online, but competition is fierce and rates are low compared to print.
If all the big papers started charging, they would guarantee their own irrelevance because readers would gravitate towards other free news including TV, radio, and of course, the press releases that governments and companies are only too happy to give away.
I think the NY Times website should give people a choice between subscribing or watching a 30-second-video-advertisment before reading an article.
Posted by: Eric Jaffa | July 22, 2009 at 01:44 PM
The newspaper industry already has precedent for antitrust exceptions in the form of the JOA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JOA . If the public doesn't become willing to pay for news, the kind of news we're used to, the kind we need, will disappear.
Posted by: Carl | July 22, 2009 at 01:48 PM
Carl -
The article-you-linked-to doesn't make the antitrust exemption of 1970 seem like good policy:
===============================
The Newspaper Preservation Act was touted as a relief measure to allow multiple newspapers competing in the same market to cut costs, thus ensuring that no one paper could have supremacy in the market by driving the other(s) out of business. However, mounting evidence suggests the passage of the Act was less about protecting editorial diversity within community newspaper markets than about inflating the profit margins of national newspaper chains. By quietly and informally taking on some behaviors of a cartel, large newspaper chains were able to sustain artificially high profits while driving independent newspapers out of business (or forcing them to sell their stake to a chain).
===============================
Posted by: Eric Jaffa | July 22, 2009 at 01:59 PM
Not only is a paywall cartel bad for consumers, it would never work. We don't license newspapers (or websites) in this country, so even if the entire mainstream media retreated behind a paywall, other companies would spring up to fill the void.
Heck, when it comes to local reporting, Geoff Dougherty of the Chi-Town Daily News makes a good argument that you can run a city desk and website for $2 million/year.
Posted by: Windypundit | July 22, 2009 at 04:39 PM
Newspapers must charge something for the online content
I don't think that the 30 second commercial works - when I run into one, I turn away and don't come back
I think a better way to go would be to have a minimal article available for free and a richer content available for those who pay something.
Its completely stupid and unsustainable to give away a good product for free, or to let it be hijacked by Huffington Post who tricks it up without adding value.
The Times and other good papers should control their own content. They got themselves into this mess, but they'd better get out quick or its over.
Posted by: The Phantom | July 22, 2009 at 05:09 PM
If you had really good sites at moderate cost, they could still do well in competition with blah free sites.
Many here probably buy a newspaper and pass by the bullshit free Metro or other newspaper that you can get.
Posted by: The Phantom | July 22, 2009 at 05:37 PM
30 seconds ads have been profitable for broadcast TV stations for decades.
People don't like ads (on TV or on the web) but I don't see why playing a 30 second ad before a nytimes.com article wouldn't work as well as playing an ad before a TV show.
Posted by: Eric Jaffa | July 22, 2009 at 05:50 PM
Not to mention that there are a number of independent and international news sources that would never go along with this even if it were in their best interest.
Posted by: Thomas | July 22, 2009 at 07:55 PM
If you had really good sites at moderate cost, they could still do well in competition with blah free sites.
Is there anybody who has made this business model work yet?
Posted by: parse | July 22, 2009 at 08:58 PM
When the average person is at the computer,he/she is a few feet from the screen in a solitary situation. There's nowhere to go when the ad comes on, other than to turn away. I tend not to turn back at that sitting, anyway.
When an ad comes on the TV, you're much further away - you can turn on the remote, talk to someone elee in the room, or watch the whole thing on a DVR which makes commercials largely irrelevant in the first place.
Posted by: The Phantom | July 22, 2009 at 10:55 PM
The idea of "free news" is something that simply reinforces the "something-for-nothing" bs we have lived with for decades... and that the irresponsible capitalist model will continue to promulgate. "Ad culture" is pernicious... but if that's what it takes to have "free" media, people have shown a willingness to "take it".
I don't watch TV for long stretches of time (& don't subscribe, either). I DO send money to NPR broadcasters locally, and also to a station that provides "Democracy Now" (& Pacifica), because I listen- & Appreciate- that content. I think that the 30-second spot is a fine idea... and will sort out readers who want content without ad verbiage in their cranial locker from those who don't want to/can't afford the $$$.
The irony, of course, is that the people willing to pay for ad-free news are the people whom the marketers would prefer to reach. ^..^
Posted by: herbert browne | July 23, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Lindsay, remember what I told you a few months ago about Simon's romanticizing the past? This is part of it. He consistently argues in favor of the old media monopolies, as in here; he also denigrates new media, referring to bloggers with the same contempt you see from George Will.
(Sorry for the late comment - was in Shanghai for a week, where TypePad, Blogger, and Wordpress are all banned)
Posted by: Alon Levy | July 26, 2009 at 09:03 PM