Hot topics click link for more
Since time immemorial, it seems, publishers have embraced a very simple business model. Advertising revenue would be supplemented by subscriptions and kiosk sales. Digital disruption turned that on its head. Paywalls seemed to save the day, charging the reader for access. That plan, in recent times, has become something of a problem as readers just say no, cutting off ad revenues and reach.
Time magazine has imposed hard paywalls since taking up the digital challenge. The publication is now 100 years old and, as such, has certain iconic value, important for the faithful, incomprehensible to Zoomers (Gen Z). Time will drop its paywall effective June 1st, said chief executive Jessica Sibley to Axios (April 27). "The opportunity to reach more audiences globally, that are younger, and that are diverse, is really important to Sam (new editor Sam Jacobs) and myself.” A century of Time’s archives will also be paywall-free. (See more about paywalls here)
Publishers have adopted all sort of digital tricks to keep the paywall model alive. Some like News Corp/Fox Corp proprietor Rupert Murdoch have the simple answer: Make ‘em pay. But from dynamic paywalls to freemiums the variations all have the same intent. Restrict access to all but those who pay. Publisher trade organizations, with their own business model, provide in-depth information about the latest in paywall innovation through conferences, newsletters and, of course, lobbying.
In the Axios article, esteemed observer Sara Fischer used the operant term: friction. The whole of the digital sphere, not limited to publishing, is discovering this rule of physics. Create friction for consumers and sparks fly. "I don't think that we're going to be alone or not followed by others that are going to look at new business models that are right for their businesses, for their audiences and how potential consumers new and existing and everything in between are able to access that content," added Ms Sibley.
Mental health, an important issue, is often debased by the unknowing and unsympathetic. Those seeking some sort of ugly status by demeaning others cannot, we have learned, alter their behavior. This does not mean they should have a venue with which to share the venom.
Last week Romanian investigative reporter Iulia Marin was found dead in her apartment, an apparent suicide. She would have turned 33 years at the end of this week. She had written about her struggles with mental health, particularly depression. Well-known in the country for more than a decade of reporting, she most recently wrote for the daily newspaper/online portal Libertatea, published by Ringier, which often tackles tough personal stories. (See more about journalism here)
For reasons beyond moral understanding talkshow host Victor Ciutacu on România TV (April 19, 20, 21) began a series of diatribes about Ms Marin’s work and death. “Ms Marin’s pen is a weapon, wickedly used to destroy destinies,” said one example noted by Romania Journal (April 21). “I wouldn’t let a person with mental problems work for me.” România TV is a right-wing nationalist news/talk channel. Mr. Ciutacu then turned his bile toward Libertatea and editor Catalin Tolontan. (See more about media in Romania here)
Not a few of Romania’s media sphere have called for România TV to be closed. Media regulator CNA is investigating the related programs. “Libertatea is a newsroom in which every person expresses himself autonomously and unfettered,” wrote Catalin Tolontan in an op-ed (April 23). “The following point of view is my own, not as an editor: Lifting the license of a TV station in a European country is such a radical act that I fundamentally disagree with it. I have not the slightest sympathy for România TV.
Meanwhile, Romanian advertisers have responded. Mobile phone giant Vodafone dropped România TV from media buys, reported Paginademedia (April 25). At least two other advertisers have followed the lead.
Three hundred and one former Russia reporters fired off a stern letter to Foreign Affairs Minister Sergei Lavrov protesting the continued detention of Wall Street Journal (WSJ) Evan Gershkovich, reported The Moscow Times (April 24). The open letter, widely published, admonished FM Lavrov to do the right thing. “We have all worked in Russia as foreign correspondents, some for a few months, others for decades. We are shocked and appalled by the arrest of our colleague Evan Gershkovich and the charges brought against him.” The protest letter, in English and Russian, was organized by France 24 reporter Elena Volochine and Guardian correspondent Shaun Walker. (See more about press/media freedom here)
FM Lavrov is busy in New York serving as the rotating president of the UN Security Council, a month long posting. The Russian Federation is a permanent member of the body and the rules are the rules. In his first meeting (April 24) he articulated the usual Russian grievances against the West, ignoring all else. Then he had to endure a pounding from UN diplomats over the war in Ukraine, a “violation” of international law and the UN Charter, said UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres.
Mr. Gershkovich was in Yekaterinburg, central Russia, conducting research when detained March 29 by the Federal Security Service (FSB). Hustled to Moscow he was charged with espionage for the United States, the first foreign journalist so charged in Russia since the Cold War. When finally allowed consular access and a lawyer, the charge was appealed, which the court dismissed. US News & World Report Moscow correspondent Nick Daniloff was detained and arrested for espionage in 1986 and later released. (See more about media in the Russian Federation here)
Russian exile news portal Meduza also published (April 4) an open letter from independent Russian media workers and civil society representatives in support of Mr. Gershkovich. “We consider the case against Gershkovich preposterous and unjust,” it read. “Evan Gershkovich’s reputation as a reporter is stellar, and his work has always met the highest journalistic standards.” Signatories included Nobel laureate Dmitry Muratov.
A defamation lawsuit filed against satirical Australian news portal Crikey was abruptly dropped last week. It had been filed by News Corporation co-chairman Lachlan Murdoch. It was another in a long list of SLAPP lawsuits, often filed by dictators, meant to punish or thwart critical news coverage. Mr. Murdoch, eldest son of Rupert Murdoch, was distressed that Crikey published an opinion piece raising questions about Fox News coverage of the 2021 US Capital riot.
Australian lawyer for Mr. Murdoch, John Churchill, filed notice of discontinuance of the lawsuit against Crikey publisher Private Media last Friday, reported news portal Mumbrella (April 21). In a subsequent statement Mr. Churchill raged at the defendant for trying to “introduce thousands of pages of documents from a defamation case in another jurisdiction, which has now settled.” That would be Dominion Voting Services v. Fox Corporation settled two days earlier in a Delaware (US) court with Fox Corporation (et.al.) agreeing to pay AUS$1.16 billion (US$787.5 million). (See more about the Dominion v. Fox lawsuit here)
Mr. Churchill was also miffed that the Australian proceeding had helped raise Crikey’s profile and subscriber list. Bringing the lawsuit to trial, he said, would be “a marketing campaign designed to attract subscribers and boost their profits.” The deep irony of that charge is the huge revenue boost for Fox Corporation from the Fox News sycophantic coverage of former US president Donald Trump. A crowdfunding campaign raised AUS$588,000 for a legal defense fund and, reported Sydney Morning Herald (April 23), Mr. Murdoch’s legal team wants that tapped before paying Private Media’s legal fees. There’s always a fight about the money. Hubris makes it shine. (See more about Fox Corp / News Corp here)
The author of the opinion piece that caused such a stir, Bernard Keane, offered a few thoughts on the lawsuit and its dismissal in Crikey (April 24). “My only original thought was to reflect the fact that we’d just had the 50th anniversary of Watergate in early June (2022), and note how far Trump exceeded the previous historical exemplar of presidential misconduct, Richard Nixon, and how much the US media landscape had changed since the 1970s. Thus the now slightly even more famous phrase “unindicted co-conspirator”. Mr. Keane used that phrase to describe Mr. Murdoch.
|
