Comments and Moderation

News Limited columnist, Andrew Bolt, raises concern about the number and intensity of abusive comments submitted to his blog at the Herald Sun online news site.

Bolt is worried and annoyed that some of his reader comments are being incorrectly attributed to him in other publications. Moreover, he is concerned about the damage caused to his reputation due to the tardy verification of information or purpose of others. This is a common concern for many journalist bloggers/bloggers and it is one of the reasons why moderators and clear rules for commenters have become an essential part of the publishing process on popular mainstream media blogs.

This is an ongoing problem for many online news blogs and it’s one that needs to be addressed.

Why does this problem need to be addressed and why is it important for Andrew Bolt to keep his blog alive?

These are some of the questions that I am considering in my work.

UPDATE October 16, 2009: Another article on this topic was posted here today.

Paywall at News Limited Revisited

I was inspired to write this after reading Jason Wilson’s article about the Murdoch paywall here.

I don’t think the paywall proposed by Rupert Murdoch will work for all of his content because, for the most part, it doesn’t provide more value than what’s already out there. I think he has a chance with his business and finance content but that’s as far as it goes. But as I’ve said in a previous post, I wouldn’t expect a cost to be assigned to all News Limited content.

I doubt that Australians will pay for content that they can find elsewhere for free. I also think that if and when the paywall is constructed, readers will shift their attention to the ABC, niche and international publications, all of which are capable of providing a rich selection of both professionally and amateurly produced information.

There is an ample supply of professional, freelance, citizen and on-the-spot coverage reporters who are willing to contribute to news publications either for free or for a fee. Either way, if media publications find a demand for specific content, they will make use of most, if not all, of the valuable content made available to them, regardless of labels assigned to reporters.

Perhaps if News Limited could build on its credibility and public trust, and aim for greater transparency then it could consider assigning monetary value to its online news products. There are many ways of achieving and maintaining a top notch brand.

I don’t think there is any question about the skill and talent of individual staff members at News Limited, but the organisation would do well to make better use of its talent. It will most likely find out that it’s sitting on an unexplored goldmine.

Mark Bahnisch and many commenters respond to Jason at Larvatus Prodeo: What if the Paywall Works?

Updated post: What about Me

This is a short note to let people know that I have updated my “Murdoch: What about Me” post. I wrote the original late last night, after a long day of work and I posted it before it was finished. I’ve included a couple of links to the BBC and an image that shows how the BBC licence fee is used.

Murdoch: What About Me

The Guardian has yet another useful article on the Murdoch, BBC battle.

After watching James Murdoch in the video interview posted at the Guardian, I have to say that I was completely surprised that he wasn’t just kidding.

I’d like to begin this post with some information about what the BBC licence fee pays for and how the licence fee is spent. Information about the licence fee is available at the BBC website

This figure belongs to the BBC and it shows what the licence fee pays for.

More details about how the licence fee is spent are here

What can the Murdoch’s do better than the BBC?

Below, I’ve posted some of the many questions that sprung to mind following the McTaggart lecture and James Murdoch’s followup interview.

• If UK households were to purchase all or some of the BBC services shown below from the Murdoch’s rather than the BBC, would News Corporation’s  charges to the public for the same services be equivalent to the current eleven pound per month licence fee?

Murdoch argues that BBC offers too many unnecessary services

• How much of the revenue gained by News Corporation would be spent on services and how much would become News Corporation profit?
• Moreover, would the UK public prefer to pay Murdoch to provide these services and would the services be the same quality as that which is currently provided by the BBC?
• Which groups of UK residents should be left out of the BBC’s service reach simply to allow News Corporation to increase its income?

James Murdoch illustrates the gap between public and commercial funds.

Murdoch’s Motivation

A 4.6 billion GBP pile of money is way too attractive not to take a shot at. At this stage of the game, Murdoch has nothing to lose but it’s a very different story for the UK public. I wonder if the UK residents—all of whom wouldn’t know life without the BBC—realise what they’d be losing.

UPDATE September 11, 2009:

The Guardian has posted a response from Mark Scott, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation managing director. Scott presented the the CBA Lecture on September 9 2009 at Australia House, London. He contends the Murdoch’s have a history of trying to limit the distribution of content produced by public service broadcasters.

Scott suggested that Murdoch’s antipathy to the BBC resembled the attitude of his grandfather, Sir Keith Murdoch, an Australian press baron who objected to plans for an ABC news service in the 1930s.

“Sir Keith Murdoch’s newspapers began calling for a reduction in the ABC’s licence fee on the basis that an ABC news service would constitute ‘improper competition’.

“As James Murdoch’s recent MacTaggart lecture shows, it’s a phrase that has resonated for the family down through the years” (Scott, 2009 in Tryhorn 2009).

Reference

Tryhorn, C., (2009). James Murdoch out to ‘destroy the BBC’, says ABC head. Guardian. Media. September 9, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/sep/09/james-murdoch-abc-bbc-mark-scott September 11, 2009.

BBC: Robert Peston on the Future of Journalism

Robert Peston speaks about the future of journalism at the Media Guardian Edinburgh International Television Festival (MGEIF).

His speech provides lots to think about and is posted on his blog here.

Broadcast Now reports Peston’s response to to Murdoch’s lecture at 2009 MGEIF here

Bill Hutton responds in support of the BBC and Peston’s speech here.

Richard Sambrook responds here. Be sure to click the Gordon Gekko link in Sambrook’s post.

Emily Bell responds here

More at the Guardian here

James Murdoch was interviewed following his McTaggart lecture. The video is here. Warning… this video might cause stress.

Peter Preston supports Murdoch here

Is News Corporation fighting for life in the news industry?

James Murdoch has expressed his uneasiness with the BBC’s concerted efforts to provide an informative, educative and entertaining service to all UK license fee payers, even where they are adequately serviced by the market.

His main concerns are two fold. The first is that free access to the BBC’s diverse content is an obstacle to News Corporation’s decision to charge for its news content, and the second arises from his fear that the BBC has become a dominant voice in the UK at the expense of independent voices.

The Guardian report, here, includes video highlights of the MacTaggart Lecture presented at the MediaGuardian Edinburgh International Television Festival.

It is well worth the visit to the Guardian to listen to Murdoch’s lecture, download the full transcript and read the BBC Trust’s response.

Meanwhile, I’ve transcribed some of the many quotes from the lecture below:

“Being funded by a universal hypothecated tax, the BBC feels empowered and obliged to try and offer something for everyone, even in areas well served by the market” (Murdoch, 2009).

“…the expansion of state sponsored journalism is a threat to the plurality and independence of our news journalism which are so important to our democracy” (Murdoch, 2009).

“Dumping free sponsored news on the market makes it incredibly difficult for journalism to flourish on the internet yet it is essential for the future of independent digital journalism that a fair price can be charged for news to people who value it” (Murdoch, 2009).

“We seem to have decided as a society to let independence and plurality wither, to let the BBC throttle the news market and then get bigger to compensate” (Murdoch, 2009).

“Sixty years ago, George Orwell published 1984—its message is more relevant now than ever. As Orwell foretold, to let the State enjoy a near monopoly of information is to guarantee manipulation and distortion” (Murdoch, 2009).

“Now, we must have a plurality of voices and they must be independent we have a system in which the state sponsored media, the BBC in particular, grow evermore dominant—that process has to be reversed” (Murdoch, 2009).

In my opinion, the BBC isn’t at the root of News Corporation’s problem. If the BBC disappeared tomorrow, it wouldn’t save News Corporation.

There’s more about the MediaGuardian Edinburgh International Television Festival here.

Robert Peston responds to James Murdoch’s lecture here

Then there is this cute piece by Damian Thompson at Telegraph Blogs

Can anyone else other than Murdoch charge for online content?

There is an interesting article here that examines this question.

Murdoch CAN charge for content online, but can anyone else?

Attention Deficit

I’d be very interested to know if and when the attention deficit kicks in at News Limited and Fairfax following their announcements to charge for content.

I suspect many people will have already started to think about alternative sources of news where they won’t be required to pay. They might have already crossed over. Indeed, one of the commenters at news.com.au says he has deleted all of his bookmarks to News Limited sites.

The mere suggestion of charging for content will have motivated formerly loyal readers to look beyond their online newspapers.

I think it’s in the best interests of News Limited and Fairfax to explain what they expect their readers to pay for in the future. If it’s only high end content such as business and finance then they need to say so to stop readers from directing their attention elsewhere.

UPDATE: In July, News CEO John Hartigan explained:

“I believe people will pay for content if it is original, exclusive, has the authority and is relevant to our audiences…”

Fairfax Finding Funding

Fairfax has announnced its intent to charge for access to some of its news content.

Tom Hyland’s article explains that there’ll be two levels of access; one level will carry an access fee while the other won’t.

The decision comes in an effort to fund the organisation’s newsroom resources, namely the staff.

This announcement follows News Corporation’s Chairman and Chief Executive Rupert Murdoch’s decision to charge for content.

More from one of the Fairfax publications about paying for news content here.

Murdoch Monetises the Message (Part 2)

I posted a list of links to articles earlier this week about Rupert Murdoch’s decision to charge his readers for online content.

There has been a lot of speculation about how this might work or fail.

My opinion about how this will happen is this: I think charges will only be imposed for specialised content such as business and finance news and I believe that the rest of the content will remain free.

The reasons I believe this to be the most likely outcome are:

• If he attached a cost to all of his content he would lose a very large proportion of his readership because people won’t pay for something they can get for free elsewhere.
• If he loses a large proportion of his readership then he will also lose a large proportion of the profit he makes from advertising—there will be a lot less views of the ads on his site.
• He is already charging for specialised content at the Wall Street Journal. The Australian, for example, uses content it buys from the Wall Street Journal. There are currently no charges at the Australian. Why would content that is paid for at the WSJ be free at the Australian? It makes sense that he would have to charge money for the content at the Australian as well.
• I believe the readership for the business and finance sections of the Australian will most likely pay for specialised/niche content and when charges finally eventuate I doubt that it will lose much of its readership—it might even increase its readership.
• One has to question how much the cost would be to access the remaining content, if indeed a charge was to be imposed. Would the money generated by subscriptions be enough to cover the loss of advertising income.
• It’s a risk to lose the attention of the readership for any amount of time and equally it’s a risk to force the readership to find a replacement for something it’s accustomed to using.

Testing the Water and Generating lots of Ideas

On another tangent, Mudoch’s decision to charge for news content has shown to be quite an impressive crowdsourcing project. He’s generated discussion in the biggest and the smallest of news organisations, blogs, social media and so on. There is now a lot out there for Murdoch and the rest of us to think about.