Interesting People mailing list archives

Setting the price of a free press


From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 20:25:37 -0400



Begin forwarded message:

From: Esther Dyson <edyson () edventure com>
Date: August 22, 2009 4:49:41 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Setting the price of a free press

agreed. I don't want my press controlled by a cabal of publishers any more than I want it controlled by a government (even one with which I mostly agree).

But in fact I'm not too worried. The Internet has a way of eroding power.

For practical purposes, an aggregating news site that charges is not an evil thing, but it shouldn't be able to control its members' prices or what they do with their content *off* the exchange - let alone what non-members do. Will it be illegal to sell content or give it away if the favored group considers it competitive? That's different from stealing content and giving it away... even though not everyone agrees where that definition applies. (These efforts will certainly keep a lot of lawyers employed, regardless of what happens to the journalists.)


Of course, I do worry about the future of journalism - subject of a thought-provoking roundtable in Aspen earlier this week at #focas09 / http://www.aspeninstitute.org/policy-work/communications-society/programs-topic/culture-technology/forum-communications-society-f-5 . But that's journalism, not a particular set of publishers called "the press." But a variety of news business models should compete, openly and fairly - including philanthropically supported enterprises such as ProPublica and the Center for Investigative Reporting. Of course it's messy, but so is any business-model transition. I'd much rather see competing philanthropists, however, than colluding companies.

As we discussed in Aspen, perhaps the roundtable title of *preserving* journalism should be amended to expanding journalism (per Jeff Jarvis) or just revitalizing it.

ANother point: Like it or not, what we do in the US is often (still!) seen as a model in other countries... Let's set a good example.

Esther Dyson






On Aug 22, 2009, at 3:58 PM, David Farber wrote:

This is more than a slippery slope, it is a cliff. The same can be said of several major industries -- TV, telecom etc.. Shall we gut the anti-trust laws?

Dave

Begin forwarded message:

From: jandpbosley () verizon net
Date: August 22, 2009 11:54:54 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net, jandpbosley () verizon net
Subject: Setting the price of a free press
Reply-To: jandpbosley () verizon net

This column was sent to you by: John Bosley

Dave, for IP if you think it worthy. I find the reasoning a little bit difficult to follow but the topic is important.

Best,

John Bosley

--------------------
Setting the price of a free press
--------------------

If the 1st Amendment is to mean anything, Congress has to suspend antitrust rules for the newspaper industry so publishers can determine as a group how much to charge for online content.

Tim Rutten

August 22 2009

As The Times' Dawn C. Chmielewski reported Friday, emissaries of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. recently approached the owners of this newspaper, the New York Times, the Washington Post and Hearst Corp. about joining a consortium that would charge for online news content.

The complete article can be viewed at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rutten22-2009aug22,0,6637557.column

Visit latimes.com at http://www.latimes.com




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Esther Dyson
edyson () edventure com

632 Broadway, 10th floor
New York, NY 10012
USA

www.edventure.com
www.flickr.com/photos/edyson
@edyson









-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com


Current thread: