NDM: The decline of the newspaper industry

The future of newspapers

This article would mainly talk about how newspapers are a medium that is going into decline. It has been predicted that newspapers might die in 2043. By die, I mean that there wouldn't be many newspapers readers as there are now. This would mean that Newspapers might not be sold in stores as they would. And this would also mean that all newspapers would transition to online exclusives instead. This could lose some jobs for journalists that had worked on the print format which would mean that it has a negative impact would be placed with the transition. 

1) In my opinion, I would agree with this statement. This would be because of how accessible the internet is. People won't have to pay to read about the news as this would be the benefits as to why customers would want to read online. Although there have been moments where newspaper audiences might get a small gift from purchasing a newspaper such as a small buildable set that parents might be interested in purchasing for their children, this still hasn't done much to prevent the decline of the newspapers. This could be because of the accessibility of the internet. This would mean that newspapers should try and either transition onto an online only service, or try and cover up something controversial through investigative reporting that might entice an audience into reading. However, this could also backfire as online sources of news could also talk about the same topic but only reference the newspaper that the story was included in. This would be less favourable to those who are also doing print as the exclusivity of the story would be compromised as it would be more accessible to those who want to read it online.


News Lego Promotion: http://www.brickshow.tv/news/2016/04/first-look-on-some-of-legos-2016-daily-mail-promotional-giveaways/ 

2) The writer's opinions, although 10 years old, are very valid. This would be because of the decline in readers. The OFCOM 2015 report has stated that a number of newspapers readers who would have decreased by 27% from 2005 to 2014. This would mean that the newspapers would be in decline over time. Especially considering that it has gone down to 27% as this would, therefore, mean that there could be some truth to the statement about the decline in 2043. As well as that, the OFCOM reports have looked into the platforms for where an audience would gain their news from. and 2% only using newspapers. This can also show how newspapers are a less preferred option as it would also show that newspapers are also being neglected by the majority who would use other platforms such as TV which is another arguably dying platform. 

3) For starters, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that supports whether there is a non-profit organisation that is supporting journalists as this might not have been reported by big outlets. However, through further digging, there is an organisation known as 

The Guardian is funded by The Scott Trust which is the organisation that would financially fund it. This would be because of the ownership that the Scott Trust would have. The profits that they would earn are reinvested into journalism.

Investigative journalism has changed over time as it has introduced ways of gaining information. Especially considering that the Panama Papers was considered the biggest leak, this would mean that they can now report on content that can now expose what big corporations are hiding from the public. As well as that there is also the fact that big corporations would now need to be considerate on what they would do. Since journalists can now use leaks as a way to highlight corruption, this has changed the way that they would investigate stories. Now that anonymous sources would leak information to journalists to report. This would now change the sources that they would gain.

Build a wall

1) Section 1: This section talks about how the audience should pay for the news as they would give a service to the audience by informing them rather just neglecting the newspapers and just reading them for free online. 

Section 2: This section talks about how newspapers should embrace a new payment system. In this case, the news journalists that would be paid aren't as much they should be. This would be because of the competition that online can offer. And there are only two American newspapers that are publishing. These two would be The Washington Post and The New York Times.

Section 3: Talks about the changes that the newspaper would face. This would be competition such as TV and online over time. Subscriptions for the online platform can help with the funding of these sources. The moments that made newspapers the highlight would now change because of the fact that online might get to it first.

Section 4: This section mainly highlight the possible ways that online would proceed after newspapers would go down. On of the ways would be by offering an affordable subscription service that would entice an audience into paying for the news service. However, the alternate would be the introduction of subscription news.

2) In summary, this article talks about how the newspaper industry is in decline. This would be because of how there are websites online that would offer the story for readers to freely read. This has, therefore, lead to the discussion that online news institutions should offer subscriptions so that people don't just freely read the news without paying for a service that journalists would offer their services to. This also talks about how the news has the potential to be strong as there were events that have occurred which have given them a strong following with a big amount of readers.

3) This article talks about the freedom of speech that an audience online would have. This would be people such as bloggers who can express their opinion on news stories. And since it has been made a lot easier with the comments sections, people can have their say about the topic and it can be publically viewed by many.

4) In my opinion, I think that online news should be put behind a paywall. This would be because the news should be something that people are willing to pay for. Journalists shouldn't feel that their efforts were wasted because they wouldn't get anything back from the audience besides the regular share of the story. The paywall can be seen as a good thing as it could also keep with good income for the journalists as adverts won't just be their only source of income. There may not be as many journalists if we consumers aren't willing to present a passion for this sort of content which is seen as important. Especially those who go investigating in the scene, their trips would be wasted as their consumers aren't willing to pay.

However, the counter argument to this is that the paywall still shouldn't exist because we as an audience have grown accustomed to not paying subscriptions to read about the news. This would be because the audience is used to the freedoms that the internet would offer. And it is because of this freedom that many people would transition to digital media just to read the news since it would be more accessible t them. Including a paywall would be like restricting access to the news. This would be because people who may not have good income may not afford it. So, therefore, they would rely on the freedom of digital news.

In conclusion, I would side with not having the paywall. This would be because many audiences wouldn't want online news if they were then told that they should pay for it. This may decrease in readers as they might change their source of news.