by Mike Masnick
Mon, Aug 24th 2009 11:28pm
One of the common refrains from folks in the newspaper industry is that, despite their inability to react to the changing market in front of them, they need to be kept alive, because of their civic duty of serving the public and preserving democracy. At least that's how the argument goes. However, Steve Yelvington points us to a good point made by Rick Edmonds, noting that if it's so important for the newspapers to serve the public, doesn't it make it much harder for them to do that behind a paywall. In other words, in their zeal to lock up the content, they're proving that they don't mean what they say when they talk about just serving the public. They really only mean that they're serving the segment of the public willing to pay -- which doesn't quite have that same noble civic duty feel to it, now does it?
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Instead Of Fashionably Killing The News Comment Section, Medium Quietly Tries Giving A Damn Instead
- Comcast Keeps Scolding Me For Calling Its Top Lobbyist A Lobbyist
- Colorado Residents Vote Overwhelmingly In Favor Of Municipal Broadband
- Copyright Terms And How Historical Journalism Is Disappearing
- Mother Jones Wins Ridiculous SLAPP Suit Filed By Billionaire... Who Still Claims Victory