Build The Wall Analysis

Section 1
David Simon starts with stating that this article is actually aimed at those who have the power to save "high-end journalism" and not actually aimed at everyday readers. He believes that two newspaper executives (Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Katharine Weymouth, publishers of The New York Times and The Washington Post) can rescue the industry which will be a positive for the nation. While other newspapers are currently in a downfall destroying their newspapers and then wondering why it won't sell and therefore leads to them giving the remains online and wondering further why the content is valueless to advertisers.

He therefore proposed to the executives that content matters most and that due to the world of digitisation that people should make people pay for the content. Newspapers need to have content that can only be professionally covered. He seems to talk about Print Vs Digital. Even though content is free online and has been for ages, changing such a view is a dangerous move (e.g. online subscriptions) Therefore content matters and you can provide a paywall for a valid reason. These huge newspaper industries should one day both inform readers that their website will be free to subscribers only and that we shouldn't try to compete and give offers or part of the news online for free. These newspapers also should have someone pursue violations of copyright and therefore put an end to bloggers and protect the newspaper industry.

Section 2
This section is about the newspaper revenue and speaks about how a new revenue stream can be created but i think it says that "no one can act if the times and the post do not" so nobody can use paywalls and create a new revenue stream unless these two popular newspapers do first. These two industry leaders have been very slow at accurately assessing the reality. However, If one newspaper goes behind a paywall then it will benefit the newspaper who fails to act as readers would go to the other newspaper who is providing news for free. It seems as if it's suggesting that the readers would be loyal to those newspapers but one will fail if the other doesn't cooperate to go behind a paywall however it is still possible that some readers will find free papers instead and it's possible that all newspapers need to work together.

The article suggest that nothing beats the content and quality of the times and the post and therefore they need to create a paywall to protect their content. It is also stated that even though the rise of online free newspaper has occurred, more people are reading the product of America's newspapers than ever before. Readers mainly go to The times and The post. Readers currently still do believe that online papers are superior and yet they pay nothing for it and online advertising doesn't deliver enough revenue. The brand loyalty to the Times will buy the times on or offline and will most likely pay for that paper (due to content).

Section 3
This section was a little difficult to understand but I believe it is saying that newspapers have the potential to make readers accept paywalls. 10% of 210.000 Sun readers, for example, who pay a subscription rate less than half the price of home delivery, would represent about $2.5 million. Even though 10% of the many thousands pay for it, this still amounts to a high revenue for the newspapers

Section 4
Here David Simon talks about the outcomes if the Times and the Post go ahead to build the wall. He believes that they'll survive through their new found revenue streams of a cheap yet profitable on lie subscription and increase price of newspapers. Collapse of certain regional and city newspapers create new opportunities for online subscriptions-based news organisations to take over and earn some revenue and maintain a slim-but paid - metro desk. However, local and regional newspapers may not survive in this current battle of a dying industry, if paywalls go ahead then they will not be able to provide credible local products and gain enough online subscriptions.

Overall argument (250 words or less)The main thing I spotted about David Simon's argument is that he believes that content matters most and that with good content and unique content you will be able to gain a large audience and potentially a loyal audience who are willing to pay for a newspaper. He seems to believe paywalls are important in creating revenue for the dying newspaper industry and that we need newspapers and professional journalism, he believes that we need newspapers but currently newspapers are destroying themselves going online, providing poor content etc. However the two major players (The Times and The Post) have the potential of saving the industry but are too slow at reacting, they have a large loyal audience base and can use paywalls as a way to gain revenue, but they both need to work together and use paywalls otherwise the one who doesn't will fail as it isn't gaining the potential revenue. Also due to being leaders in the industry, if they use paywalls first other newspapers will follow, they are waiting on them. Possibly due to content being high in the times and the post, it'll be idiotic for poor content and low audience share newspapers to attempt to have a paywall if the times and post haven't done as they have better content and are for free. Many people are willing to pay for newspapers and subscriptions to the time and the post.

Comments section

I will never pay for “news” again. Most news is not truly news - it is sensationalism, hype and deception. Most news is not balanced - every editor is biased. And it is not just that - I truly can not afford to pay for news. Academics, especially with tenure, got it made in the shade and may be able to afford to follow the “news” as they are funded and it does not come out of their pockets. The question comes down to this - do we want an informed public or not. The answer, at least right now, is no. If the public were truly properly informed the American people would not allow Wall Street to gut Main Street, would not believe the lies of “the terrorists are going to destroy our way of life” and would understand that it really makes no difference - except in perception - of who holds the title of chief cheerleader - oops I mean Commander in Chief, President, which should be renamed CEO of America Incorporated.

#9 Posted by Lawrence Turner on Fri 17 Jul 2009 at 11:55 AM

The above statement I believe disagrees with David Simon, he believes that content is always biased and not truly important news and that he currently is unable to pay for news and just wouldn't want to. He therefore isn't willing to pay for it under the idea that its not properly informing audiences with real news and is just the view of the editor.

Fascinating. What about the big gateway sites, like Yahoo and MSN? I bet a lot of people mostly read their news on Yahoo's home page. Yahoo pays the AP,right? Is there some kind of wholesale deal possible there?

Because people DO pay for the internet. They pay their DSL or their broadband provider, they pay their cell phone bill, they pay for hardware.

I agree that no one in mass media was ready for the fact that the internet broke the advertising business model. I agree that content is valuable, but if its cost was hidden in the advertising revenue stream for so long, is there another place in the online environment that can shoulder that cost, in addition to subscriptions?

#11 Posted by Dana Sterling on Fri 17 Jul 2009 at 01:38 PM

The above statement seems to agree to parts of it but disagree with the main point of the article I think? This commenter states that we indirectly pay for news though the paying of internet service providers, phone bills and hardware etc. and believes that most people don't even get their news from the main papers/sites but from sites such as Yahoo and MSN news. That was how he/she disagrees but he agrees to how the internet destroyed the advertising revenue for the newspapers print industry but this commenter believes there must be another way they can gain that revenue back.

The lack of imagination on display in this article is jaw-dropping.

If, in five years, any part of this article can be looked back upon as anything other than a completely wrong-headed assessment of the state of the industry, if a reasonable person will be able to look back from 2014 on any of the suggestions and say either, "That would have been a good thing to try" or "Thank goodness they did that," I will eat a Baltimore Orioles hat while standing naked in Times Square.

#14 Posted by King Kaufman on Sat 18 Jul 2009 at 04:13 AM

This above comment I chose purely due to the last line but I believe this commenter is against the article believing that the newspaper industry isn't destroying itself and isn't in a bad state and suggests that the whole article is incorrect.

Let's see if I understand the major points here:

Only the New York Times and the Washington Post matter.

No real journalism gets done outside print newspapers.

The regional papers all stink and deserve to die.

The AP must kick out the broadcasters and dump the commercial customers, or die.

If we engineer a mass suicide by the entire newspaper industry, kill the Associated Press, strangle the broadcasters and continue to pretend that the rest of the world doesn't exist, we'll ensure the perpetuation of the 1980s Washington Post-New York Times news empire so they can hire 10 reporters in St. Louis.

Did I get the gist of it?

#15 Posted by yelvington on Sat 18 Jul 2009 at 08:56 AM

This comment seems to sarcastically point out what their interpretation is of the article and seems to believe that the article is being biased saying how the two important newspapers are NY times and Washington post only matter and that this is the only way for journalism to work and that regional papers aren't needed.

My opinion

I believe that the paywall is a potential way to earn money and that some newspapers should put some content behind a paywall to help survive and maintain the quality but some newspapers don't need it e.g. NY times and Post etc. as they are already seen as popular and people are willing to pay for it so instead of paywalls they could just increase prices (obviously after market research). If news did have a paywall online then I personally would not like to pay for it, i'd most likely go elsewhere for news as I'm currently not too brand loyal to a newspaper, I do use the BBC or The guardian and if the Guardian puts up a paywall it would be disappointing but i'd just go to the BBC instead for news.