'Build The Wall analysis'

Section 1

In the first section the author david simon and creator of the TV hit ‘The wire’ starts by discussing how the internet is a free privellege allowing us to access and use it as a means to gain news through a number of different websites as well as talking about different news sources and newspapers such as ‘the times’ and ‘the Washington times’. He also in this section makes a comparison between newspapers and the internet and states how some people are still familiar and more comfortable in a way with reading a newspaper rather than an online copy, because it may not bring the same experience to the table.

Section 2

The second section is quite similar to the first once again discussing how the need for buying newspapers may be an old concept especially if there is a ‘price’ still involved, in addition to this the amount of people accessing their news online is on the rise and people are starting to prefer buying digital products rather than newspapers which may be beneficial in the long term. Vulnerability of newspapers is also discussed in this section amongst one another and the example of ‘the times’ was used as well as ‘the post’.

Section 3

In this section a number of facts and statistics were used in order to establish the points being made “10% of the existing 210,000 Baltimore Sum readers' for example, who pay a subscription rate less than half the price of home delivery, or roughly 10$ which would represent about $2.5m a year. Abscent the cost of trucks, gas, paper, presses, money like that represents the beginnings of a solid revenue stream having both positive and negative sides to this.”

Section 4

In this final section of the article David talks about the risk of newspapers going behind a pay wall. Once again referring to newspapers such as ‘The post’ and ‘The times’ when talking about how they build that wall. He states that many of these newspapers have already begun to take this action and how newspapers will slowly follow this action and join a pay wall too.

Comment 1:

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

The person above who wrote this comment clearly disagrees with Davids argument claiming that even from the perspective of today that it is still both false and inaccurate. He also mocks the author David with sarcasm and is completely against the article and the points it makes.

Comment 2:

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

Once again this is another comment that summarises the post however doing it in a very negative and pesimistic way in which it makes the article and the author seem arrogant and un-intelligent claiming that David says only the new York Time and the Washington Post matter.

Comment 3:

If news were not free, there would be enough people willing to pay for it to cover the cost of producing it. But suppose the New York Times suddenly started charging for online access; althought it is a great newspaper, I probably wouldn't pay for it. There are just too many free alternatives that are almost as good. Even if (for example) no other online news source were as good as the Times, the remaining news sources will collectively fill the gap.
The economic parlance, you have goods which are near perfect substitutes. If I can't read Paul Krugman's column, I can go read some other noble prize winning economist's latest available(and accessible) column. Likewise, if I can't read Thomas Freidman, I can get the same kind of hype from a used car lot advertisement.

So I think, maybe, a number of major papers would have to work in concert to significantly degrade the free online news world. In other words - again in economic parlance - they might have to collude.

The news industry needs something like OPEC.

#13 Posted by Raskalnikov on Fri 17 Jul 2009 at 10:22 PM

This opinion is one that ultimately agrees with the argument and points being made by the author of the article. The one who commented agrees completely with what David says however poses an opposite perspective also.

In my opinion I think that David has made a great argument and made some very strong points which makes me agree with him to the full extent. I feel as though I to share the same feelings with him as to which direction the newspaper industry is heading. Since the internet is becoming more and more widely available, the newspaper industry is being heavily impacted by this and in most cases suffering from this. 

People in today’s society would rather go online for their news rather than reading a physical copy which they may have to purchase especially those of a younger generation due to the fact that they grew up with the internet just as the older generation grew up with newspapers. However David did not completely write off newspapers and still feels as though they are resourceful which once again I agree with to the fullest extent.