Extra! Extra! Read All About It!

Well, it’s finally beginning to happen. The musings & “maybe’s” are quickly turning into a harsh reality that may take some getting used to. But what’s this unprecedented change, you might ask? Well… Wait for it… Online newspapers will officially start (& some have already officially started) to charge readers for viewing their content.

Though it's been under speculation for quite some time, it seems that the financial aspect of this issue has unfortunately caught up to the newspaper companies because according to Janet Guyon, "free online access has contributed to the financial difficulties of dozens of newspapers." Different newspapers are responding to the paywall in different ways, but it's safe to say that readers aren't too thrilled with the new system. What once came free now has an unwelcomed price tag attached to it and the majority of readers haven't taken too kindly to this new ultimatum of paying for news content or not receiving the content at all, so when faced with the choice to take it or leave it, most have decided to leave it.

The issue in it of itself is actually very simple. Those in charge of online newspapers have decided that they must charge readers to view their content because their printed newspaper sales were suffering too much to keep the online version free of cost. They feel that the cost to view the material online is simply "subscription" with its purpose rooted in the goal of "protecting the sales of their printed editions." However, in an effort to gain money, it turns out that some newspaper companies have actually lost money or they haven't made any money at all. They've started to charge for online viewings, so people stopped reading their publications & switched to a publication that was still free. Granted, most newspapers (every single one that I've read about that has an online version) offer special deals & discounts for the online version. The online edition is cheaper than the printed version and some newspapers offer deals where, for example, if you subscribe to the printed newspaper, you then have access to the online newspaper for just a penny more per week or month (keep in mind that the online version allows the reader to view clips of news stories, videos, links, etc. that you simply can't get from a printed newspaper).

When you get down to it, the number of publications that don't charge for their online editions is growing smaller all too quickly & unfortunately, readers aren't pleased. But the unsupportive response shouldn't be too surprising considering that every time we search on Google, we don't have to pay a dime. Perhaps we've been spoiled. We've gotten the idea into our heads that as long as we have the necessary means to look up information (laptops, computers, etc.), then the actual acquiring of said information should be free; it never crossed our minds that we would actually have to pay for this content, whether people want to call it a "subscription"or not. But one thing continues to remain true: the cost of maintaining an online newspaper is exponentially lower than the cost of maintaining a printed version. So why are the prices for an online subscription generally just a few cents less? Why do the numbers seem a bit off? In short, how far are newspaper companies willing to go in order for them to save or make money, & who exactly is going to be feeling the effects of their measures? Them? Or us?

The Line is Growing Thinner

Newspapers were created by the people, for the people. Though initial purposes may have been to make money, it’s difficult to believe that this was the only purpose for newspapers because if money was the only issue that mattered, then surely there would have been another invention to bring home the bacon. No, newspapers were most definitely (& quite obviously) written to also keep its readers up to date on current events. With that being said, I repeat, newspapers were created by the people, for the people. BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE. PEOPLE. So, if we’re dealing with people here, why does it seem as if we're slowly being replaced?

It used to be where pretty much all a journalist had to look out for was someone who was a better writer- someone higher up on the food chain who had the potential to kick you out of your comfy desk or someone who was potentially more valuable as a writer. So, you kept your pieces coming in a timely manner, made sure your articles were well-written, thought-out, cited, etc, & made sure that people wanted to read what you were writing about (& made sure that others knew just how comfortable you had gotten in that desk & how you intended on staying there). But now, instead of having to watch your back to make sure you don’t lose your promotion to your coworker, or lose your job to a newbie with a “young attitude” & “fresh, hip ideas,” you have to make sure that a machine doesn’t leave you with no where to stand other than the unemployment line.

Granted, when looking at the whole picture, yes, Neimen Reports clearly states that "our concern should not be solely a fear of robots replacing us," but the article does make a few interesting points & got me thinking that sure, perhaps machines aren't a threat to us because the idea of a machine composing its own article is unheard of, not to mention impossible. However, was it not also unheard of & impossible in the time of the first newspapers for a computer to pull stats together on its own? What I'm trying to get at is that a machine can't write its own article... not yet. But with our ever-prospering technology, the line separating what a machine does & what a machine can do is perpetually growing thinner, and it's starting to make me wonder, how long before the two sides bleed into one another? How long until what a machine "can do" becomes what a machine "does?" In short, how long until the already thin line completely disappears?