The Changing Online Media Landscape

[Sour Masher]

Not sure what to make of it, but a few sites I have frequented for years have either largely shifted behind paywalls, been crippled by massive layoffs and downsizing of talented full-time writers, or have just folded over the last couple of years. I'm beginning to worry that these are not isolated examples of internet Darwinism, especially since some of these changes have occurred on wildly popular sites. The ubiquity of ad-blocking software seems to have been changing the internet for awhile now. More and more content is being put behind paywalls, and more free content is being overcrowded in ads. It's been going on for a long time now, obviously, but I guess I've just noticed sites I go to a lot finally succumbing to it lately.

One example of this is Cracked.com, which went from having 300 million page views a month, largely driven from a talented and funny staff of full-time writers, to almost every one of those full-time writers being fired a few days ago. Now the site will rely almost entirely on poorly paid freelancers. While they get some good freelancers, it is a shame, as many of those let go did really good work. This occurred after Scripps bought them for nearly 40 million just a year ago. I don't know if this is their fault, or more of a sign of the times. It is a shame.

I guess I just have get used to ponying up subscription fees for a lot of the news and entertainment sources I used to enjoy for free. I do worry that this will create more sound proof echo chambers. I mean, I'll click on and read free stuff from sites I don't align with politically, but I'm not going to pay to get to that content. If I have to pay, I'll have to choose how to spend my dollars and I'll end up reading mostly NYT and WaPo, probably.

[nullnor]

i just read my 5 free articles a month and then do it again next month. 10 if i use a different computer. but i could care less about where i get my news. i avoid the NYT if i can. i don't like them anymore. if i place asks me to disable my add blocker, i go somewhere else. it's not my problem. on the other hand if a magazine like national geographic asked me to buy their magazine once in a while, i would do it. and i have.

sorry to hear about your cracked.com. that was a good site. i keep forgetting to go there.

edit: i have strange opinions. i grew up thinking the internet should be free. im not going to pay for tv, or news. cable is a little different because it's overpriced. but news is sort of pollution. why pay for something that's going to warp you. google news works great. until they changed their format recently but still works. i don't need a special site to figure out if the opinion is slanted. i don't know. i used to goto scientific american and discover to support them. and i had subscriptions to both magazines in the mail. but once scientific american started becoming a pay site, i stopped supporting them.

i suppose im just against paying for information. now we are basing whole economies off of the internet. this can't be good for society. pretty soon everyone will just be going to inner-space and forget there's an outside world. there's irony in that somewhere.

[revo]

It is sad. Journalism is a trade, and being a good journalist is a tremendous skill. But these started being broken down with blogs, who were largely created by untrained individuals who then claim they are "journalists", and the smartphone, which enabled anyone to break a news story as they are always carrying around a video camera.

Combine that with the nature of the internet, that you don't pay for perusing sites, and it's a perfect storm. It's worse when a site that was free for years suddenly goes behind a paywall. But OTOH, how do you pay for having the site up for free when, as you say, the ads are being blocked?

As I studied journalism in college and have a lot of friends in the industry, there's also a sense that a) they can lose their job at any time; and b) the dwindling job market for journalists are creating a large pool and few opportunities, so those who are well-paid have yet another thing to fear.

And then there's our wackadoodle President who continues to discredit the industry.

[cardboardbox]

And then there's our wackadoodle President who continues to discredit the industry.

they deserve it after their epic fail recently.

[revo]

they deserve it after their epic fail recently.

So in your opinion the entire industry deserves it? Whaaaat?

[cardboardbox]

So in your opinion the entire industry deserves it? Whaaaat?

they deserve the discrediting by the president.

[Sour Masher]

they deserve the discrediting by the president.

I think we are referring to different issues. I'm lamenting the long decline of professional writers being able to make a solid living producing content on sites without subscriptions or so many poorly designed ads that many resort to ad-blockers to avoid seeing and hearing them. They are being replaced by poorly paid free-lancers bloggers who may not produce at the same level of quality. This has been happening for a long time now.

You seem to be referring to a few recent examples of journalists making mistakes that the industry has acknowledged and penalized them for, and how they deserve Trump ridiculing them. I'm not sure how those specific journalists deserving or not deserving penalty relates to the economics of online written content in general, leading to a long decline of online writing as a stable career. Revo bring up Trump in this context, I think (correct me, if I am wrong), wasn't a defense of those specific journalists, but a reference to Trump's long history of discrediting the entire field of journalism, painting all media that does not cover him favorably as the enemy of the people. Him doing that just ads to the existing problem, because if the people don't trust professional writers/journalists, they will accept poorly paid freelancers replacing them, even if those replacement are even more prone to error and poor quality writing and research.

[Erik]

I have been a journalist/writer/editor all my life. I will actively discourage my son from doing the same should he ever show such an inclination.

[cardboardbox]

I think we are referring to different issues. I'm lamenting the long decline of professional writers being able to make a solid living producing content on sites without subscriptions or so many poorly designed ads that many resort to ad-blockers to avoid seeing and hearing them. They are being replaced by poorly paid free-lancers bloggers who may not produce at the same level of quality. This has been happening for a long time now.

You seem to be referring to a few recent examples of journalists making mistakes that the industry has acknowledged and penalized them for, and how they deserve Trump ridiculing them. I'm not sure how those specific journalists deserving or not deserving penalty relates to the economics of online written content in general, leading to a long decline of online writing as a stable career. Revo bring up Trump in this context, I think (correct me, if I am wrong), wasn't a defense of those specific journalists, but a reference to Trump's long history of discrediting the entire field of journalism, painting all media that does not cover him favorably as the enemy of the people. Him doing that just ads to the existing problem, because if the people don't trust professional writers/journalists, they will accept poorly paid freelancers replacing them, even if those replacement are even more prone to error and poor quality writing and research.

I know, its just that Revo seemed to be saying the industry doesnt deserve to get whacked by Trump but after what they did recently I think they certainly deserve it. Mistakes happen but how do the mistakes keep happening in the same direction? Most or all of the "mistakes" are stories that are in the anti-Trump direction. I had no respect for the liberal media before the election last year, had even less after the election, and still the media finds ways to sink to new lows.

Sorry to derail your thread. Yes I'd be disappointed if the non-news websites I visit disappeared or went pay-to-read. I tend to read smaller websites and forums though so not sure these would be affected.

[nullnor]

lets be clear, the Republican party has been attacking the credibility of the news for as long as i remember, over 25 years. Trump does also but it started long ago. they created fake news. they coddled and nurtured conspiracy theories and turned from severely slanted news and opinions evolving to the fake news we see today. and if you ask most conspiracy theorists, it was Obama and CNN that created it. it works to their advantage because a lot of their base is neophobic. and it motivates them to vote out of fear.

[onejayhawk]

I have been a journalist/writer/editor all my life. I will actively discourage my son from doing the same should he ever show such an inclination.

I think the industry lost its way when TV came into prominence in the 1960s. TV news was selling a story, not telling the facts. Walter Cronkite came on every night and told the country how to feel about what was going on. It became about the narrative, not about keeping the public informed.

J

[Hornsby]