The effects of online technology

Newspaper versus online technology

1) Agree.disagree with Rupert Murdoch's decision?:

In my opinion i think that the BBC shouldn't provide free news because this would caused journalists to lose their jobs and as a result it would be people in society recording the news. The quality of news would then be more likely to decrease and so would the accuracy of the news. I think there should be a paywall so there isn't a problem with people getting the correct news from journalists as the news is regulated.I don't agree with Murdoch's decision because, BBC have had a public remit of being loyal and basing their content for the viewers best interest. I do see it from Murdoch's perspective, that news corporations that started this entire empire of allowing society knowing things about the other side of the world, is something that should be available as it has helped many people and saved millions of lives. Without news corporations, corrupt people and crisis in other countries would be kept national and no-one would know.

2) The Times Paywall article:

In my opinion i think that Rupert Murdoch was right to introduce a paywall and stop the news that publishes from being free so that journalists can keep their jobs. I think that they have a big role to play in society because the news reported are regulated which makes the news more accurate than someones recording whatever they want and saying their opinion. Without journalists we wouldn't have been able to access to some of the news stories one of the big ones being Brexit which was reported by journalists. They are the ones who go out to challenge people's ideologies and find the hidden truth behind iconic people. For example, a group on journalists went under-cover and found evidence against the Sam Allardyce corruption values and how he planned to rig the Fifa system. If it wasn't for people paying for news, this news wouldn't have broke and peoples 'iconic champion' would be a corrupt man who would be doing illegal activities without anybody knowing.

3) Two comments analysis:

• "It is so ridiculous if these mainstream newspapers believe that they can "force readership of fee-based news. One can get the same "news" for free almost anywhere on the internet. I'd take a hint from the alternative free weeklies that survive just off their local advertising. I don't think anyone would read them otherwise. These papers are full of paid advertising. The fee model will never work"             -Jerry Harris

I don't agree with this because I think that news can be obtained from easier sources for free but the quality of the news may not be the same which we receive from journalists and the accuracy may not be as high either which means the audience receives news which isn't accurate or of low quality. 

• "The company now has lifetime value and renewable revenue attached to its 
  digital customers where previously it had none' – could this BTW is an analogy for the Labour Party, re shifting from the block vote to individual membership?"

I do agree with this because there are different target audiences and those who are younger are more likely to get their news from an online source whereas those who are older are more likely to get it from a print format.  

4) Why has the "Evening Standard" had such an increase in revenue during the past 2 years?:

The evening standard has bucked the trend because people are now more likely to go on the internet to obtain their news from online newspapers. The evening standard however, has customers who are loyal to the newspaper and would pay to carry on receiving news from the evening standard as it as seen as a reliable and accurate source. This is different to other newspapers as they've moved online and rather than people paying they get news for free from the newspapers online or other online sources. Evening Standard may share ideologies and values that their readers have, and that is something readers can't find in other newspapers. Therefore, for charging for their paper, there audience will not hesitate to pay for the paper.

5) Is there any hope for the newspaper industry or will it eventually die out? Provide a detailed response to this question explaining and justifying your opinion.

In my opinion I think the newspaper industry will die out and become something which is seen to be vintage like vinyl records because people are not willing to pay for the quality which it possess and this is due to the younger generation becoming more reliant on the internet for information as it's cheap and easy to obtain. However, if there is a paywall introduced or another method it would help save the newspaper industry as people are paying which will help keep the industry alive. People are getting rid of journalists because they can't afford to have them anymore which is why there needs to be a method to help the industry or it will decline.