No i don't because i believe that if big is the biggest public service broadcaster and have a huge following and so they are doing us a favor in giving us up to date news that is high quality for free.
James Murdoch is just unhappy because other media institutions are hurting because of the BBC but I believe the audience are pleased with the free news.None would pay for news when there is news available for free.BBC are funded by the revenue made from the television license. Whichever one pays as everyone need to so that a lot of revenue generated.However other news institutions need to stay up for business as they need ways to generate profit.So they do subscriptions for people to pay and view there content.
2) Read this blog on the Times paywall three years on.
3) Was Rupert Murdoch right to put his news content (The Times, The Sun) behind a paywall?
Yes,i think Rupert Murdoch was right to put his content behind a paywall as his content is important to his business and so he pays his journalist to make them and so then he cannot put it there for free.When there are search engines that have access to content easily and so they maybe mission out on millions.The paywall is doing well as some people still feel the content is good so they pay for subscriptions.
4) Choose two comments from below the Times paywall article - one that argues in favour of the paywall and one that argues against. Copy a quote from each and explain which YOU agree with and why.
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 agree with this comment as some mainstream newspaper are being a bit big headed and so they think people should pay for their content.However the readers can go some where else and read it for free some where else.so they need to just take in the fact that news has changed due to new and digital media and news should be free.
I'd put my money on The Times when it comes to UK-based newspapers.MailOnline's audience is vast, especially for a UK-based title
I disagree with this as The Times and Daily mail are have two different audience and give different content and so as new digital media has come in place more of the younger generation have daily mail to hear the gossip about celebrities or football news.
5) Read this article from the Media Briefing on the continuing decline of the newspaper industry.
6) Why do you think the Evening Standard has bucked the trend and increased circulation and profit in the last two years?
The London Evening Standard is an anomaly when its circulation and estimated readership figures are compared.
Because they expanded its distribution from 700,000 copies a day to 900,000 and recorded by ABC.
7) 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.
The newspaper industry will die out as the new and digital media increases.This is because nearly everyone on the planet has access to the internet and so they can access news immediately with it full report.Instead of waiting for the next days newspaper and paying for it.Also another reason is the news is 24 hours now and has different parts when it comes on such as 6 o'clock news or 10 o'clock.The newspaper are still trying to offer their content for 50p or even lesser but i believe none will be paying for it any longer.They making losses as they paying wages for educated journalist and so they are only making their money only from adverting and that is not enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment