It was with considerable interest that I recently watched Private Eye editor Ian Hislop give evidence to the Leveson Inquiry. In some regards, I found it particularly striking when he made the point that journalism was a noble craft that shouldn’t be given away for free.
As much as, in theory, I do not disagree with that point, I cannot help feeling that for people such as Hislop, or indeed for Lionel Barber of the Financial Times, it is easy to adopt that position. Both individuals head publications that are specialist in nature, and thus can afford to charge for the content they provide.
However for other publications, particularly daily newspapers, Hislop’s assertion becomes far harder to achieve. On an individual basis, newspapers may well argue the merits of the works of their journalists over those from other publications as a key selling point. Yet, with the greatest respect, it may not always be the case that there is such a strong desire to buy newspapers simply to read the output of certain journalists. Reporting of the Leveson Inquiry is a case in point. With so much information available from such a wide variety of sources across different media, why should people pay for reports on the Leveson Inquiry when they can access them for free?
There is no doubt in my mind that good journalism is indeed a noble craft worth paying for. In spite of this though, consumers have rapidly acquired a taste for that which is free. In the months and years to come, getting consumers to pay for that noble craft will only get harder and harder.
0 Responses to “Paying for a noble craft”