Newspapers: the effect of online technology

Do you agree with James Murdoch that the BBC should not be allowed to provide free news online? Why?

Personally, I do not agree with James Murdoch and he's views on how the BBC should not be allowed to provide free news online. This is purely because I believe that news is information, and this day and age, information or knowledge should be made abundantly free and easily accessible for all people. This in turn has greater socio-economic impacts in a positive way on society and people. For James Murdoch to say that free news is a threat to private industries is hypocritical as his whole livelihood depends on the functioning of NewsCorp and if NewsCorp is not making money he will be out of business and probably out of money too. I think this hypocrisy is overtly clear as it shows me that all he cares about is himself and not the bigger picture of society and freedom of information.

Was Rupert Murdoch right to put his news content (The Times, The Sunday Times) behind a paywall?

It was clear to Rupert Murdoch that the print platform was rapidly dying with the introduction of new and digital media. By putting his news content behind a paywall, he was essentially able to force his audience base online to pay a subscription fee for the news content. This was done as a way to make sure that his news is never provided for free and is always creating some kind of monetary income. Before 2010, the Times and Sunday Times had little to zero subscribers and digital customers but after the pay wall this increased to 140,000 digital customers in 2013 after only 3 years. In a way I personally understand the reasoning behind Rupert Murdoch's decisions to create a pay wall and charge his customers for the news provided, he understood the fact that if he didn't try out new strategies then his business will surely fail, which is something that new and digital media forces all businesses to do.

Why do you think the Evening Standard has bucked the trend and increased circulation and profit in the last two years?

The Evening Standard is shown as an anomaly and does not fit the trend due to the fact that it had a huge increase in circulation. The Standard decided to expand its circulation which obviously meant that there was going to be a positive change in circulation but also it would mean that there is a better chance of a profit. However, what this indicator fails to show is that expanding circulation might not be the best idea for long term sustainability as it does not show the fact that the Standard 83,000 readers five percent of its total audience.

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.

I personally think that the newspaper industry is dying out. The physical print platform is something that people in society just don't use anymore due to the increase in new and digital media. Digital media provides ease of accessibility, free news, and a huge amount of freedom of choice to the audience. It also enables audiences to eventually create their own opinions due to the fact that many news outlets online aren't as heavily mediated compared to newspapers. However, I still think social media as a news outlet is not possible, since I believe that social media is a news distributor but it does not create news, which is the job of journalists. I also believe that newspapers industries have the ability to evolve and therefore expand their businesses. Society is always going to be changing in one way or another, this is undisputed, and as a result of this industries and institutions should be fluid and flexible in their operations that they are able to adapt and incorporate new strategies in order to turn a profit.