Showing posts with label digital media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label digital media. Show all posts

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Cue Murdoch Media Outrage

Oracle Tim Blair on ABC director Mark Scott's plans for a 24 hour TV news channel :

Won’t happen.

ABC News launches 24 hour TV news channel :

“No media organisation in the country is better equipped to deliver this channel than the national broadcaster,” said ABC Managing Director Mark Scott.

“We can draw on the investment already made in the ABC, through its major newsrooms in every state and territory, 12 international bureaux and 60 regional newsrooms, to deliver to Australians a top-quality 24-hour news service that is comprehensive, independent and up to the minute.”

New programs are also being developed specifically for the channel, focusing on world news, national politics and business. Many of the ABC’s existing television news and current affairs programs will also be featured.

The Australian ran this up the flagpole to see who would salute it, on January 16 :

THE ABC's plan to launch in the next few months a 24-hour national television news service amounts to a taxpayer-funded declaration of war on commercial media outlets in Australia.

Apparently there's something inherently bad in having a news channel that is not packed with intrusive advertising.

This will not be the ABC's first foray into 24 hour news programming :



The gag at 3.30 is the news reality that all 24 hour news channels have to deal with, as will the ABC.


.

Saturday, August 15, 2009

Paywalls For Murdoch Bloggers?

"No. NO. N.O. Nope. Nah. Never. Ever."


By Darryl Mason

Yesterday, we had a look at the responses in comments at Andrew Bolt's blog to the announcement that Digital Rupert wants everyone to start paying to read his 'quality journalism', and presumably blogs as well.

Murdoch wants his star online writers to pay their way now, they have to prove their worth by showing that they have plenty of loyal readers who will fork over some cash to get access to their thoughts and insights and research.

When The Professional Idiot asked, whaddayathink? 99% of Boltoids responded "No!"

In short, the 'Step One : Gauge Public Reaction' exercise in slowly introducing thousands of Andrew Bolt readers to the 'You Will Pay!' model was a Total Fucking Disaster.

So then Tim Blair, casual blogger at the Daily Telegraph, took a shot at finding out if his readers will now pay for what they've been reading for years online for free.

According to Blair, the installation of pay walls across the Digital Rupert empire....
....might happen more rapidly than people expect. You all up for payin’?
Cue a Total Fucking Disaster Part 2 as dozens of Blair's most dedicated readers and commenters, those expected by Digital Ruper executives to be the likeliest to pay, crush dreams of healthily profitable blogging :

"The short answer is: never. I’ve never paid for on-line content and never will."

"Nope."

"No."

"No."

"Sorry, not paying. Ever."

"You all up for payin’? No."

"tell ‘em their dreaming."

"NO There are plenty of other free sites around."

"People won’t pay. They just won’t. It may suck, but there it is."

"I’d be disappointed if I was asked to pay for access to a blog and probably wouldn’t, with all due respects to your talents, Tim."

"No."

"Hell no"

"Nice blog you’ve got here, Tim. Pity if something should happen to it."

And my favourite :

"I’m getting a very strong 'Super League' vibe about this whole idea."

After dozens of utterly negative comments towards the possibility of Blair stepping behind a pay wall in Digital Rupert's NewsOTainment Online Fortress, Blair's very good friend 'WB' dropped by and, what a shock, announced that 'You Will Pay!' is damn good idea, actually :

"The point for Rupert I guess is that ad revenue is just not enough.

....he’s having to turn his mind to charging and I am having to turn my mind to paying for the content I access multiple times daily and currently for no more than my ISP and mobile phone charges.

I love online content. It rocks for the most part. And I think it has value that should be paid for to the authors and creators of it. So I kind of hope Rupert gets this up..."

'WB' was all but a lone voice backing 'You Will Pay!' in all those pages of negative comments :

"No. N.O. Hell, no."

"You all up for payin’? Nope!"

"Ha! Dream on."

"You all up for payin’?"

"Nope"


Tim Blair has the same fundamental problem that Andrew Bolt has. Their thousands of readers might yet come round to the idea of paying something each month or year to read their blogs, with plenty of incentives, but they most certainly will not pay while Bolt and Blair remain a part of the Digital Rupert empire.

Many Blair and Bolt readers have no love or loyalty for Murdoch, and they don't appear interested in the rest of Digital Rupert's world of content. They don't want their money being used by the Daily Telegraph and Courier Mail to denigrate society with celebrity porn filth and art wank, helping to fund the cursed leftie Obama & Al Gore faithful cheer squads they appear to believe have infested the news rooms of virtually all the Australian news media.

For someone who was in the vanguard of Australian bloggers back in the dark and turgid days of the early 2000s, this must be quite a monumental moment for Tim Blair. It's certainly an extremely significant event in the history of Australian blogging, for professional bloggers to turn to their audiences and hold out a permanent begging bowl.

But can the 'You Will Pay!' model be made to work?

The very concept of a blog has to change. It can't just be a text blog anymore. A 'You Will Pay!' site built around one journalist, or opinionist, will have to thumping with content, video, audio, decent search engines to trawl the archives, and plenty more to turn something that was free into something that costs money.

No readers of any Australian blogs seem to like the idea of the blogs they like being moved behind pay walls, and why should they? It clearly means a lot less other readers and commenters. The community of readers built up around a blog with lively comment threads will always be decimated by the shift from free to pay for access.

Like bloggers, prolific and verbose commenters love to know that the blog that they're spending time and thought commenting at is actually being read by more than a few dozen, or a few hundred, people.

These commenters like the big audience that a Bolt or Blair blog site provides. They're not going to have that behind pay walls. They know that. As many at Bolt and Blair's blogs have already pointed out, a 'You Wil Pay!' blog becomes like a private club, with limited attendance, and the same old people coming back every day until the club closes due to extreme boredom.

Seriously, what's the point of dropping landmine comments at Digital Rupert blogs baiting Stupid Lefties by claiming they frothingly fantasise about a four-way with Hitler, Stalin and Mao, if a pay wall means that no Stupid Lefties will be reading such witty utterances?

And to top it all off, there will also be no more anonymous or alias-only commenting under the Digital Rupert New Media Order. Tim Blair is also preparing his readers for that alarming prospect.

Regardless of whether pay walls go up around the Blair & Bolt blogs, a Digital Rupert ID system for commenting is on the cards. Digital Rupert wants to data-mine readers and give the information culled from registrations to advertisers and marketers. It's all part of the Digital Rupert strategy to allow advertisers to "target you across multiple platforms". Sounds painful.

To finish, another sampling of the 100-plus negative comments Blair received when he dared to ask his readers, folksy-style, "You all up for payin'?":

"Nope. Two things I would never pay for - and online news is one of them."

"Tim - I’m also going to have to say no. Sorry."

"I’m afraid not, Tim. For all the reasons listed above."

"You all up for payin’? HAHAHAHA......HAHAHAHAH....GASP.... HAHAHAH wait, you’re serious? nope"

"The concept of having to pay to read this blog is very amusing."

There's a lot of Murdoch execs, and journalists, who can't see the funny side of the prickly predicament they're now in.

A media empire is crumbling, gushing billions, losing audiences, and perhaps most crushingly for Rupert Murdoch himself, Losing Influence. Murdoch lost truckloads of money keeping The Australian in production through the 1980s and 1990s because he knew he could influence and control the government of the day with a national broadsheet read by the country's most powerful business leaders, politicians and ruling classes. Those days are over.

To save his fortune and his business, Murdoch will dare to lose one million online free readers to suck some bucks from 1000 who are willing to pay.

These are desperate end days for the Murdoch media empire.

Murdoch has to find readers who will pay. Millions of them around the world to stem the massive losses, even after he shuts down the printing presses for the last time.

And where are all these people who will pay to read what they used to get for free?

Nobody seems to know yet.

Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt went looking and they certainly couldn't find any.

Except for 'WB' of course.


Go Here For More Stories On Digital Rupert, Paywalls And The Fall Of Newspapers

.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Digital Rupert Clings To Old 20th Century Habits & Hubris

By Darryl Mason

A few more quotes from Rupert Murdoch on why he's so confident enough people will pay to read his kind of news so as to stop his whole empire from plummeting like the Twin Towers.
"Quality journalism is not cheap."
Yes, we all agree on that. Very true. No-one can argue with that.

Or maybe Rupert just found out that his News Of The World has paid out a couple of million to people its journalists spied on, getting busted in the process. That's expensive 'journalism'. But is it 'quality journalism?

Or dodgy as all fuck?

So what other kind of quality journalism does Digital Rupert think will pull in the bucks from the online news reading public?

"When we have a celebrity scoop, the number of hits we get now are astronomical."

Okay, so he's banking on the collapsed celebrity media market to save his empire. It won't happen. There is no lock on information and news anymore. Put it behind a pay wall and it will just take a few more minutes longer to find its way into the public domain.

Any even minor-interest celebrity news is all across Twitter and Facebook and a thousand other blogs, social networking sites and indie media, often faster than anyone in the Murdoch media can get in front of a keyboard. Any spectacular or juicy details of 'How Bastard Brad Broke Weepy Jen's Heart, Again!' will be everywhere, regardless of pay walls and copyright.

And Digital Rupert aims to protect those 'Rampaging Sex Addicted Football Star Cuts Off Own Penis'-type stories from being duplicated and circulated.

"We'll be asserting our copyright at every point."

He's dreaming. Copyright is dead.

What if someone who witnesses a terrible disaster or terrorist attack demands to be cut in for some of the revenue generated by what Digital Rupert believes will the kinds of big stories that people will pay to read online? What if everyone interviewed by a Murdoch journalist decided to "retain their copyright" until they saw some cash. What then?

The whole You Will Pay! digital media devolution has begun, and for news junkies and media flunkies alike, it will be fascinating to see how it unfolds.

But it's not going to put a lot of bloggers and independent news sites out of business. If anything, the blocking of access to Murdoch news sites will increase traffic to those who Free Publish.

There's no law against someone reporting what a journalist has reported behind a corporate media pay wall.

Not yet anyway.

.

Friday, March 13, 2009

Newspaper No Longer Most Trusted Source Of News For Australians

90% of Journalism Students Do Not Read Newspapers


By Darryl Mason

Australians have lost their trust in newspapers. Where once we had seven or eight major dailies in our larger cities, we now have one or two, at most, with at least one barely managing to hang on as a newspaper. But people are not just forsaking the daily newspaper ritual because the medium is well overdue for a complete reinvention, we ditched newspapers because we no longer trusted them to tell us the truth.

Newspapers are dying because they broke the essential pact of trust that existed for a century between newspaper and dedicated daily reader : you print the news that you have made sure is true to the best of your abilities, and we will trust you on most of it.

In the rush to war, all the city dailies, and The Australian of course, printed pages filled with lies and distortions and myth for months on end. We knew it was bullshit, how did they not know? And so millions of Australian minds wondered : 'Well, if they can so casually lie to us about a fucking war, what else are they lying to us about, on a daily basis?'

Story One :

The journalists of the future are rapidly moving away from traditional news services, saying they are impractical compared to new media.

A survey of Australian journalism students found 90 per cent of students do not like reading the newspaper, preferring to source news from commercial television or online media.

Professor in Journalism and Media Studies at the Queensland University of Technology, Alan Knight, conducted the survey and says despite an aversion to newspapers, 95 per cent of students are very interested in following the news.

He says the move away from newspapers is of great concern because they are still the major source of serious news in Australia.

Professor Knight says the survey results indicated most journalism students strongly believe newspapers will eventually die out but it may take some time.

"The future of printed newspapers is looking grim as there is an evident shift towards digital journalism."

Story Two :
A study by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has found that the Internet is the most trusted media outlet in Australia.

The study found that 25% of the population list the Internet as their must trusted source of information, followed by newspapers at 20%, TV at approx 17%, and radio at approx 13%.

I certainly don't think newspapers are about to die out. There will be even more of them in the future, but they will be more like magazines, and the news will be more local, focused on the events and happenings of a few suburbs, instead of entire states or countries. There's more to say on that, but my last coffee buzz has worn off and it's too late now for a refresher.

Perhaps the major newspapers can make up on the weekend what they lose during the week from melting sales. The weekend paper is heading towards $5, so just make it $5 now, but make it worth $10. That means real discount coupons for supermarkets and petrol stations. Get rid of the awful, inky newsprint, make it more like a larger magazine, with a weekly free movie on DVD (or a memory stick), and perhaps also the week's worth of video stories produced for the websites that most of us never get around to viewing during the workday. Why not a standard CD every week, a compilation of songs from the albums reviewed inside? Why not a thin paperback as well?

Instead of the Saturday morning ritual being "get milk, get bread, oh yeah, get the papers", it should be, "If I don't get the paper today, my weekend will be ruined."

I'm sure all the major newspaper owners are preparing for what comes next, when the newspapers we have come to know and love, and now disrespect and distrust, no longer pay their way. But you sure don't hear them talking much about exciting, innovative ideas to refresh and re-invent their printed media, and save their own arses.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Scratching My Underbelly

I am a criminal. I've broken the law. I must be punished. When they come for me, I won't put up a fight. I won't leap out the window, or try to disguise myself as an indoor palm. I will go peacefully, and I will do my time in prison and pray that my deserved incarceration relieves me of the rancid, crippling guilt that infects my very being.

I knew it was wrong, but I did it anyway. I couldn't stop myself. I read that pirated copies of the brilliant Australian true-crime TV series Underbelly were up on The Pirate Bay and available for download. And I downloaded them. Not just the three episodes already screened, but this week's episode, and next week's and the week after.

Not only did I watch them, I told others where to score a hit for themselves.

I am a criminal. But I'm not alone. So when I go to prison, I might run into some of the "tens of thousands of Australians (who) have risked a prison term and hefty fines" to illegally download Underbelly episodes. At least we'll all have something to talk about.

All the controversy about Underbelly began a few weeks back when Supreme Court judge Justice Betty King issued a suppression order to stop the show being screened on TV in Victoria. Rightly, Justice King decided the TV series might prejudice a murder trial connected with the gangsters slightly fictionalised in Underbelly.

The problem, of course, is that television is now only one of the many ways people can watch a show. Despite the ban, tens of thousands in Victoria have now seen Underbelly, online, on bootleg DVDs, as MP4 files on their iPods, at Underbelly home parties and in the pubs that have been brave enough to screen the copies flooding in across the border (and online).

But :

Downloading TV show and movies from the internet is illegal under Australian copyright law and anyone caught with copies risks up to five years jail and fines of up to $60,500.

Anyone caught distributing or selling copyrighted footage of Underbelly could be charged with contempt of court.

A spokeswoman for Channel 9 said the network would take legal action against anyone caught downloading or distributing its prized program.

Can you imagine Channel 9 pursuing legal action against anyone for downloading Underbelly? If Channel 9 tried to jail tens of thousands of its viewers for five years, the outrage would be voluminous and fantastic, and deeply embarrassing for anyone connected with Channel 9.

And how much would it cost them to pursue legal action "against anyone" who has made an illegal copy of Underbelly? And for what result? To publicly prove just how behind the times Channel 9 is? To reveal just how out of touch they are with so much of their primary audience, who already watch many hours of TV shows online, and ongadget, each week?

Is it not my fault, or your fault, that Channel 9 is still locked in the 20th century, and insists on drip-feeding its latest series to a hungry audience who would mostly buy all the episodes in one go, for a reasonable price, if only they were made available now.

And it's not like this revolution in how great swathes of Australia' youth, and under 40s, now watch TV has come out of the blue. The old guard of TV knew online video was coming, but they wanted to cling to the old model they knew so well - "we show it and you watch it when we want you to" - even as advertising dollars slipped away, first in a trickle and now (literally) in a torrent.

Nobody should have to watch their favourite shows at a set time, on a chosen night, if they don't want to. What is this? The 1950s?

Video taping allows for a fair bit of freedom, but the technology is there for buying (without ads) TV shows you want to watch, a whole series at once (if it's been made), that you can then view on your wall screen, your laptop, your portable video player, your phone, when you want to. That television channels and studios haven't already introduced a delivery and payment system as simple and convenient as paying for cable TV by direct debit is their problem, not ours. They are behind the marketplace. They are not meeting marketplace demands

That is their fault, and their problem, not yours.

People will pay to watch their favourite shows (without ads) as long as the means of getting the show downloaded and into digital possession is straightforward, as easy as scoring a ringtone.

It's that simple.

If your favourite fruit shop won't have mangoes for a week, and a shop down the road is giving them away, are you expected to go away and wait?

Absurd.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

So why didn't Channel 9 foresee that there would be a huge market for Underbelly on digital download, or even DVD, once a few episodes had been aired on commercial TV. Why isn't there, at the very least, a box set of Underbelly already for sale in JB HiFi?

It's not your fault, or mine, that they are so lacking in vision that they did not know their market well enough to realise they could have flogged 30,000 or 50,000 box sets of Underbelly off the back of the enormous publicity and interest the show has already generated.

I'm not downloading un-aired episodes of Underbelly because I want to steal from Channel 9 or the show's producers. I just don't want to have to wait a week for another 40 minutes of Underbelly, and I don't want to endure all those fucking commercials.

If it was available for paid download right now, I'd pay.

When Underbelly is released as a DVD box set, I'll buy a copy for my library, and I'll buy a copy for my brother as a Christmas present (if it's out before Christmas), even if I do watch all episodes online (illegally) for free.

That's what 20th century TV networks like Channel 9 don't understand. Just because you watched something for free, doesn't mean you won't also go and buy a hard copy of it, if the packaging and poster and booklet are decent enough.

Why this ridiculous delay between first airing and selling a digital version?

It already seems bizarre that a movie like There Will Be Blood is in cinemas, will disappear for a few months and then not show up on DVD until May or June, if not later. There may be a download you can buy when it's in rental stores, but why can't you buy a copy of it for your wall screen, lap top, or phone right now? Tonight? When interest in it is at its peak?

The reason why tens of thousands of people in Australia are downloading episodes of Underbelly, and illegal copies of There Will Be Blood, right now is not because they don't want to pay to watch it. They just don't want to wait to watch it.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


From news.com.au :

"This is a great problem on the internet," said University of NSW Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre executive director David Vaile.

"Legal jurisdiction is typically limited by geography, and by its nature the internet doesn't place much regard to geography."

Mr Vaile believed Justice King may have taken into consideration the possibility that copies of the drama would appear on the internet, but that it would have limited impact on potential jurors.

"(She) may well have decided that something that is not the official publisher's website will not have the same sort of impact," he said.

However watching illegal versions of the underworld drama will not be without risk.

Mr Vaile said people caught uploading clips from Underbelly could face copyright and contempt of court charges.

"There is potential in some circumstances for that order to render people in contempt," Mr Vaile said.

He added that despite the belief that the internet provides anonymity, authorities would be able to track down any culprits.

"There is a false perception around that activity on the internet is anonymous or that's untraceable. Unfortunately, the opposite is the case," Mr Vaile said.

Which is why I'm confessing to my criminal behaviour here and now. I did it. I downloaded illegal copies of Underbelly, and I watched them on my laptop. I'm not sorry. I will do it again, and again, unless I'm stopped.

I'm waiting for the police to come and arrest me. Channel 9 said they would do me for my crimes. Here I am.

I don't know how many hours of freedom I have left, but I will....oh, wait. Someone's just uploaded Underbelly Episode 7 to The Pirate Bay.

Now I've got something new to watch while I wait for justice to be delivered upon me.

Hopefully I can blog from prison.