Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy
I am not responsible for any of my suppliers if they go bust. There are many more suppliers in the market, as there in the media world. If I want news, I just use any of the hundreds of search engines available to me to find that news. If this media group wants to take the Murdoch dollar, they are welcome to it.
|
The consumer *is* ultimately affected because their choice is reduced. You say there are enough suppliers in the market. That may be true, at the moment. How about ten years time when all bar two or three have gone bankrupt? This is what will happen with newspapers if they don't get more revenue. The free news model being used at the moment is not (sadly) sustainable for the long term. Clearly, Advertising rates are not currently high enough to sustain them.
Blogs and amateur news sites are not the answer. Amateurs do not have access to the resources that professional journalists have access to. As Chris says, they have their place, but they should not replace the pros. It's also worth noting that people make decisions on who they vote for based upon what they see and read in the media.. Give control of the media to one or two companies (as is already happening), and you give those companies the power to pervert the course of any election. That has an impact on *all* of us.
In short, it is extremely naive to assume that you will not be affected if the professional news organisations don't make more money.