Unless it's something left-wing - he does wear his politics on his sleeve.

Simon Wilson always struck me as a strange fit for NZME given their right wing editorial position. I would have thought he would be far more comfortable at RNZ or The Spinoff, but then journalists don't get a lot of employment choice these days. 

alasta:

 

Simon Wilson always struck me as a strange fit for NZME given their right wing editorial position. I would have thought he would be far more comfortable at RNZ or The Spinoff, but then journalists don't get a lot of employment choice these days. 

 

I don't mind left or right wing editorial positions as long as they are kept in editorials and op-eds left out of journalism and news reports.

johno1234: Few if any of the so called journalists on the left do. Perhaps the most glaring is the Herald's Simon Wilson who is basically a Labour cheerleader pretending to be a journalist.

networkn:

 

['Good', quality Journalism isn't free to produce, it's unlikely to survive whilst it's free to consume. 

 

The trouble with pay to consume is subscription saturation.  I would selectively read articles from a couple of a dozen news sources. But I'm only interested in 5% - 10% of the available content.  Bugger having 20 odd subscriptions, each of which I barely dip into.

I would be into a nano-pay-per-view system.  That is, an ad-free app that aggregates articles from a bunch of media outlets and charges me a tiny fee per article.  I'd happily spend $20 a month on that.

I just want the news. I don't care what someone thinks about something.

To be honest TVNZ Breakfast is the worst. There's no substance in their questioning.

Do I care what Chumbawamba says? I care about what's going on in this country, not about what some band thinks of whatever it is. I care about the economy, jobs, education etc.

And yet the MSM cares more about silly irrelevant stuff than anything else.

MikeAqua:

 

The trouble with pay to consume is subscription saturation.  I would selectively read articles from a couple of a dozen news sources. But I'm only interested in 5% - 10% of the available content.  Bugger having 20 odd subscriptions, each of which I barely dip into.

 

I would be into a nano-pay-per-view system.  That is, an ad-free app that aggregates articles from a bunch of media outlets and charges me a tiny fee per article.  I'd happily spend $20 a month on that.

 

Is that not called Reddit and Facebook?

You want Spotify for news, but I seriously doubt it's going to improve the quality of news reporting, esp, given the low rates that are likely to be paid for reporters. Will the reporters be represented by a management company? Who validates the facts of the articles?

It's an interesting idea with way too many potential flaws to be executed with any level of mutually agreeable, profitable competency. 

heavenlywild:And yet the MSM cares more about silly irrelevant stuff than anything else.

networkn:

 

Is that not called Reddit and Facebook?

 

You want Spotify for news, but I seriously doubt it's going to improve the quality of news reporting, esp, given the low rates that are likely to be paid for reporters. Will the reporters be represented by a management company? Who validates the facts of the articles?

 

It's an interesting idea with way too many potential flaws to be executed with any level of mutually agreeable, profitable competency. 

 

Reddit and Facebook don't pay the media companies - or do they?

The problem MSM have is they don't directly earn revenue for their content.  The only real revenue stream is advertising.  This drives click-baiting and cost cutting, to the detriment of content-quality and the profession of journalism as a whole.  Journalism has fallen so far.  I think you need to be 40+ to have experienced quality journalism as an adult.

I'm imagining a system where readers pay-per-read for articles they want to read. The media outlets wouldn't get paid unless the user clicks past the first few lines That gives the media companies direct revenue-for-content. That's an incentive to produce quality and engaging material.  That means they will need to compete for quality journos by paying them well.  It's easy to see an ecosystem where a user can identify favourite journos or media outlets.  That would encourage competition for content quality.  

Such a model would depend on the app owner and the media outlets sharing revenue fairly.  I was mainly thinking of the app working with media entities rather than independent reporters.

Maybe I am dreaming here, but that model appeals to me as reader. 

The alternate where I subscribe to all of a particular media outlet's content is like buying an $80 buffet lunch, where I don't like most of the food choices, at the same restaurant everyday.  What I really want is a media supermarket where I can pick what and how much I want to buy.  All without advertising.

MikeAqua:

 

Reddit and Facebook don't pay the media companies - or do they?

 

This was a side comment with a bit of tongue in cheek and wasn't the real point I was making.

 

The problem MSM have is they don't directly earn revenue for their content.  The only real revenue stream is advertising.  This drives click-baiting and cost cutting, to the detriment of content-quality and the profession of journalism as a whole.  Journalism has fallen so far.  I think you need to be 40+ to have experienced quality journalism as an adult.

 

[snip]

 

The alternate where I subscribe to all of a particular media outlet's content is like buying an $80 buffet lunch, where I don't like most of the food choices, at the same restaurant everyday.  What I really want is a media supermarket where I can pick what and how much I want to buy.  All without advertising.

 

It's a nice idea, with some merit, but impossible, I believe to implement so that all parties got a fair shake. 

In the 'old days' you paid for a Newspaper, had no choice over it's content, it was full of ad's and usually, very few people complained. 

No-one wants to 'pay' the real cost of producing quality news any more, despite being happy to spend $100 a month subscribing to whatever entertainment floats their boat. 

I know a number of people with subscriptions to non-NZ media, because it's more balanced and better quality. 

They are most definitely the exception, not the rule. 

MikeAqua:

 

Reddit and Facebook don't pay the media companies - or do they?

 

They do in Australia...

A better example would be like Apple News+, one subscription fee and news agencies still have the option of subscription only articles that require a subscription to that paper, for example if they have a massive investigative journalism series.

I'm imagining a system where readers pay-per-read for articles they want to read. The media outlets wouldn't get paid unless the user clicks past the first few lines That gives the media companies direct revenue-for-content.

heavenlywild:

 

I just want the news. I don't care what someone thinks about something.

 

^^^ This! So much this. I wish I had more than one +1 to give.

I would pay for NZ media if there was anything decent and reported the news, factually and in depth. I don't need their opinions. I don't need to be preached at. I don't need to be told what I ought to be thinking. Nor do I generally need someone trying to do my thinking for me and telling me whether something is "good" or "bad" . I just want to know what is happening. 

And I mean I want actual serious news - "teenager bravely calls out a man on a bus in Levin for saying a bad word", "Princess Anne gets a new hat", or "Kim Kardashian goes up a pants size" are not, contrary to what the NZ media seems to think, serious news articles. Neither is a lengthy opinion piece telling me what someone called Dave or Bill in Twizel thinks about their neighbours pet hamster, or an "article" that is just a reprint of a company's marketing press release.