Paid-for journalism, railway or otherwise

[tbtc]

Can you see a clear divide between those "of a certain age" who have been brought up on the wonders of the broadsheets (and possibly being amongst the Radio 4 listeners) and those young people who have grown up with social media and see this as normal information to use ?

Definitely.

My parents still read two or three (paid for) newspapers a day. The idea of skimming through websites for headlines and articles seems alien to them.

How many people under thirty buy newspapers, I wonder? It's going to seem as strange as the idea of buying a physical copy of music album / film to many of them.

The people who write Metro are also paid professional journalists

Nobody is arguing otherwise.

The point is that because the Metro are giving their content away, it becomes harder for people to associate "worth" to it and harder to get people to actually pay for a quality product.

If I can get my news from websites and the Metro then why am I going to spend a pound a day on a "proper" newspaper? The "proper" newspaper may have more depth, it may have more information, but one people are used to getting something for free it becomes very hard to get them to pay for it.

Joe public doesn't know media or communications law, as has been said already - they don't know how to construct a proper story, how to ensure balance

And all professional journalists only ever write properly researched balanced stories?

Must remember that next time I pick up a tabloid

The Mail Online seems to have it sussed. Incredibly long, search engine friendly, headlines that basically tell the whole story (why read it?), loads of photos (that's why) and controversial content that ensures gazillions of comments - mostly slagging off the paper. But hey, it's all traffic.

I don't think people understand that the Mail is very clever at antagonising people, who read purely to be outraged. It gives the circulation figures the advertisers crave.

Another trick is to have the home page scroll virtually endlessly, another great trick for SEO.

Fair play to them for doing it so well I guess

Depressingly accurate summary. Traffic is what matters, even if many of the people reading dislike what you are saying (but feel compelled to read it to be outraged!).

Sad that that's the future, but it is.

 

[edwin_m]

Hmm. So the people who agree with the Mail's stories are outraged by what they read, and the rest are outraged at what they read.

 

[Pumbaa]

Very interesting, do you have the actual circulations rather than just the percentages ?

No wonder my Independent subscription has not gone up for years (even though the cover price has). 20% loss of copies they need all the readers they can get

Wonder if "The I" is responsible for some of those lost sales

Have a look here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jun/07/i-daily-star-sales-rise

 

[scotsman]

And all professional journalists only ever write properly researched balanced stories?

Must remember that next time I pick up a tabloid

Oi, I've written for a tabloid!

 

[jon0844]

Me too. I've even featured in the Daily Mail for my sins.

 

[scotsman]

Me too. I've even featured in the Daily Mail for my sins.

I hear they pay well...?

 

[jon0844]

Not to me, but it was only a contribution to a story.

And I wasn't happy with the way a sub-editor changed a lot of what I said, including the general meaning of what I was saying. I've not done anything for the Daily Mail since.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

The advantage of a physical paper or magazine is that you can flick through and perhaps read things you might not click on online.

A Kindle or iPad is no use when it comes to swatting wasps - a broadsheet is best for that.

 

[jon0844]

This is where two technologies work together; use the iPad to show the wasp photos of flowers or BBQ food, and the paper to swat it!

 

[edwin_m]

Don't you then just end up with squashed wasps all over your costly iPad?

 

[michael769]

It is only a matter ot time before your smarphone will have a wasp swatter built in?

 

[scotsman]

It is only a matter ot time before your smarphone will have a wasp swatter built in?

Taser add-on for the bottom of the iPhone/iPad?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Not to me, but it was only a contribution to a story. I wasn't happy with the way a sub-editor changed a lot of what I said, including the general meaning of what I was saying. I've not done anything for the Daily Mail since.

Do sub-editors have a natural gift for doing this....or are people of a certain type employed as sub-editors...

 

[jon0844]

Do sub-editors have a natural gift for doing this....or are people of a certain type employed as sub-editors...

They vary, as you'd expect.

Some are excellent at making good headlines as well as 'fixing' your copy. Others are meticulous over detail and always ask for clarification to make sure that what you've said is accurate and that you've written it clearly.

Let's say you write something that's clear in your head, but written down seems a little ambiguous. A good sub will make sure that you (or s/he) corrects it so there's no chance of that. A bad sub will just look for typos and incorrectly placed apostrophes and little else. A really bad sub might re-work your copy to be deliberately misleading if s/he is working to an editorial policy that says to make every story read a certain way (i.e. sensationalised or controversial).

A sub-editor can often be the root cause of bad stories, and you'll probably not even know who they are. Many are contracted staff that don't work full time for a publisher.