Who Pays For Journalism?
Advertising. Where is my Staples’ “that was easy” button?
Okay… Actually I want to talk about the “current &
future business models.” Specifically, pay per view. And even more
specifically, Netflix. Some people argue that Netflix is “bringing gloom to Hollywood ,” (Like in this
article: http://variety.com/2013/digital/news/netflix-stock-boom-may-bring-gloom-to-hollywood-1200606326/)
while users and reviewers rave about the online streaming service.
Brian Stelter kind of started this ferris-wheel of brain
activity for me earlier today when he posted on his twitter account, "Was "Walking Dead" helped by binge-viewing of prior seasons? hard to say, but season three's been up on Netflix for two weeks."
Netflix really has turned it’s viewers into puppets – as they
will watch whatever the company decides to stream. And because Netflix is cheap, many users are canceling subscriptions to Direct Tv, Verizon Fios, TiVo and Cable... and using Netflix as their base entertainment. So naturally, that takes away from who is paying for all broadcast journalism. But think about this: what
benefit has Netflix had on documentaries? The other realm of journalism. When googling just, “Netflix and
documentaries,” you come up with this: https://www.google.com/#q=netflix+and+documentaries+;
pages and pages of previously unknown documentaries made by unknown journalists
that are found on Netflix. Thanks to this “media money sucker,” hundreds of documentary journalists are getting their work out in the world for people to see. So before hundreds of newspaper journalists rage on Netflix's latest deal with Virgin Mobile, maybe they should re-evaluate. From one artist to another, do we
blame Netflix for taking away “what pays for journalism,” by urging users to cut
the chord on tv subscriptions… or do we applaud them for aiding our material in
being seen? What is
the more valuable currency to "pay for journalism?" Cash money or material views?
No comments:
Post a Comment