Twitter  #srccon begins today. Here’s Quartz's roundup to help you follow along nie.mn/1peSJsm  
Nieman Journalism Lab
Pushing to the future of journalism — A project of the Nieman Foundation at Harvard

David Carr: The reckoning is at hand for free content

David Carr returns today to his favorite question of late: When are we going to start charging for this stuff?

In a piece which ends with the foreboding phrase “The reckoning is at hand,” Carr begins his wrap-up of the events of the past week with something of a stretch:

“Questions about who owns content became a jump ball last week. The struggle results from a rethinking of business models that have existed almost since the birth of print.”

I don’t think there’s ever been a question about who owns content. The creator owns content, unless he/she sells it outright. The question on the minds of Carr and others is more concerned with how content creation can continue as the money-pump runs dry, and how to extract more revenue from online publication. Fair questions. Is the answer to put up a wall and start charging for newspaper content? That’s an itch that most surely will be scratched soon, allowing this argument to move from theoretical to post-mortem.

“News content, past pratfalls aside, has generally always been free for the taking in an ad-supported Internet format. The book industry, though, received a cash payout from Google in exchange for the right to scan out-of-print books. With abundant precedent for the sharing of revenue for professionally produced content, an increasingly bereft newspaper industry is asking, ‘Where’s ours?’”

Who will jump first? The Times? Tribune? A few more smaller-market papers? This tease can’t go on forever.

But while we’re still in the realm of the theoretical, the willful distortion of the issue continues to annoy. Words like “theft” and “steal” and “take” are thrown around as if we’re all in agreement that users and aggregators are no better than Somali pirates, gorging on sweet, free content and moving on.

“The taking of one company’s content and selling ads against it for the benefit of another company is simply not fair, no matter what the lawyers stipulate. But even though this is not the world newspapers might have chosen, it is the one that they live in. Deprived of links — the oxygen of the Internet — many news providers would wither away. The desperation was reflected in the rhetoric.”

Point one, repeated frequently in the past week: robots.txt. If newspapers or the AP feel their content is being stolen, they have an option available to them. They can opt out.

Point two: The reason that the newspaper industry is “desperate” for life-giving linkage — overly dependent on Google and others for traffic — is that, given a wide-open opportunity to not just benefit from the link economy, but to create it in the past decade and a half, the newspaper business has chosen — and continues to choose — to act like links don’t exist. Look at Carr’s piece itself; I count at least 8 opportunities for links that would help the reader and add depth to the story, among them:

  • The NYT’s own previous coverage of the unfolding AP story
  • Online coverage and discussion of the Los Angeles Times’ front-page fake news article/ad
  • News of the VEVO joint venture video service
  • The Wall Street Journal’s Robert Thomson on digital tapeworms
  • “Digital scold” Jeff Jarvis’ screed about how the newspaper industry “blew it.”
  • Danny Sullivan’s “Shut up” manifesto (in which he explains the simplicity of robots.txt)

The NYT’s online publishing system, however, has supplied six nearly meaningless robolinks to topics it has found in its database. Is this the kind of “search-friendly landing page(s)” that the AP is pitching as part of the salvation for newspapers?

The good thing about all this discussion is that there seems to be a growing consensus that the business model for newspapers is broken. And bless David Carr for carrying some Inside Baseball to a wider audience. But it would be a shame to waste this opportunity by simply seeking scapegoats and trying to bend the internet to the needs of the newspaper, rather than to use the depth and strength of news organizations to build something even better.

                                   
What to read next
RevealCIRlogo
Justin Ellis    July 18, 2014
With $3.5 million in grant funding and an eye for collaboration, the Center for Investigative Reporting and PRX aim to bring deep investigations to radio and podcasting.
  • http://1timstreet.com Tim Street

    Can you imagine a time when we didn’t have bar codes on grocery store products?

    Sure, some of you do.

    How did that happen? How did all store sold products get bar codes? That must have taken forever? Right? But it did happen and now at some stores you can even serve as your own check out clerk by scanning the bar codes and paying the check out machine.

    Well, the time has come for Digital Bar Codes.

    You don’t pay to walk into a grocery store and shop. You pay to check out and you pay for what you take.

    How many of you pay at the pump?

    You pay for what you use. You don’t pay to enter the gas station.

    I don’t know who it will be and I don’t know how fast it will happen but with a digital media “bar code” (or some type of digital fingerprint) we will be paying for the media we consume and the creators will get their cut all traced through a tracking system.

  • http://www.thedigitalists.com Greg H

    I don’t know who it will be and I don’t know how fast it will happen but with a digital media “bar code” (or some type of digital fingerprint) we will be paying for the media we consume and the creators will get their cut all traced through a tracking system.

    Um, isn’t that just micropayments?

  • Pingback: Recent posts at Nieman Journalism Lab — Zero Percent Idle

  • Pingback: Will David Carr be better than Harrington or McNair? | College Education