Build the Wall Analysis

Section one focuses on the pay wall to their audience and its targeted to New York times and Washington post.

Section two focuses on it’ll be effective and useful.

Section three focuses on the decline in newspaper and why they have appeared

Section four focuses on the times and post where going to become online basis

This newspaper article focuses on the online paywall and how it’s going to be successful.

 This discusses the effects if The Times and The Post were to move to an online basis. It also talks about the values and qualities of newspaper and how the newspaper will try to attract a bigger audience. It mentions how newspapers don’t take advantage of the internet and this has caused a decline in the newspaper.  Washington post and the times have learnt that if they put a higher price they won’t need to resort into a paywall. This can only become possible if the newspaper reaches a higher selling point and attracts a wider audience.

Comment 1)  Most of the folks writing about the paywall issue are assuming that because only 5-10 percent of the current online readership will sign up for web content, it will be a failure. Actually, the folks behind the paywall effort don't care if anyone signs up for online content. The entire point is to push people into print subscriptions. It could be that some newspapers or groups won't even offer an online-only option. It will just be a free giveaway with print. - See more at: http://www.cjr.org/feature/build_the_wall_1.php?page=all#sthash.wnwwtr7m.dpuf

This commenter talks thinks that this idea of paywall is waste. They argue that thinking that people will be singing up for news is a waste of time. They believe that the people behind pay wall don’t care if anyone actually signs up for they only care is to push people into print subscription.

 Comment 2) Dear Yelvington, Why do you feel the need to "reduce" anything? How about something that has gradations and nuances and some dynamic standing on its own, without being made a sound bite for the ignorant. I guess that's what the Internet is good for. Reduction to simple, monochromatic imagery and phrases. Congrats on rising to this new medium's current level of unedited, unchallenged intellectual mediocrity. #17 Posted by homer bigart, CJR on Sat 18 Jul 2009 at 01:14 PM - See more at: http://www.cjr.org/feature/build_the_wall_1.php?page=all#sthash.wnwwtr7m.dpuf

This commenter argues that there’s no point in reducing something that can stand on its own.  This commenter believes that if anything is going to be reduced it should be something that is of importance . This commenter goes to congratulating for the rise the levels of unedited unchallenged intellectual mediocrity.

Comment 3)  The reason why newspapers are struggling now is not entirely because of a free online product and low online ad revenue. The reason newspapers are hurting is because the car industry went kerplunk. I would guess that NY Times readership has increased since it went online. It's just waiting to find a way to capitalize on that readership. Once someone figures out a way to do that, then problem will take care of its self. Also if NYTIMES and WP start charging we'll all just go to CNN.com. We will be less informed but we will also not have paid for something we believed should be free. - See more at: http://www.cjr.org/feature/build_the_wall_1.php?page=all#sthash.wnwwtr7m.dpuf

This commenter argues that the reasons to why there is a massive decline in newspaper are different to what it is being argued.  They believe that newspaper is hurting is because of the ‘car industry’ went kerplunk.  They believe that NY times has increased readership since it went online and this is a success.

I personally believe that technology is increasing and due to this fact news paper is becoming neglected and decline more and more.  Placing paywall might help journalist get paid for their services as right now not many journalist are making as much as journalist used to make before. I don't believe this is a successful idea as news is exposed everyday on the internet for people so there is no meaning for them to be hiding their news and charging for it as people have different sources to receive news online as well as social interactions sites like twitter. From a personal point of view I would never pay for something that I can receive for free, that is just stupidity. His idea of charging for news is smart but it won't be effective unless the bbc leave the competition