Build the wall analysis

http://www.cjr.org/feature/build_the_wall_1.php?page=all

• Section 1 

The article is stating/comparing both forms of media of both the internet and newspapers. The discussion of how the newspaper costs money versus how the internet is free and how it is coming from a biased opinion at the start questioning them as to why they would charge money for that when people can simply go upon the internet and read for FREE.

• Section 2

This section is similar to the section above but instead states things such as how if digital technology can be accessed for free, why bother buying, old methods of news such as newspapers where the factor of 'price' is still involved. Also, the fact that more people are buying digital products compared to cheap newspapers effectively gives them a long term saving of money. On the other hand, if lots of people read The New York Times daily, then the need for digital technology. 

• Section 3 

This section presents to the audience that '10% of the existing 210,000 Baltimore Sum readers' for example, who pay a subscription rate less than half the price of home delivery, or roughly 10$ which would represent about $2.5m a year. Abscent the cost of trucks, gas, paper, presses, money like that represents the beginnings of a solid revenue stream having both positive and negative sides to this. 

• Section 4 (For the industry, it is later than it should be…)

Within this section the journalist talks about both papers 'The Post' and 'The Times' and how they 'build that wall.' meaning how both of them represent newspapers and bring back its roots and what newspapers are all about. The discussion of there being a pay wall for these newspapers arose and also discussed how if the news is 'revolved around the cover state, sports and finance, this would generate enough revenue to maintain a slip and paid 'metro desk'.  

Content matters. And you must find a way, in the brave new world of digitization, to make people pay for that content.

Disagree: I do not agree with this because I feel that the free online articles and online content may take over within the near future and if institutions continue offering a paywall for their newspapers/online articles then their target consumers may be forced to leave them and turn towards going to another newspaper. 

Newspaper companies run a business, and businesses need to make money. They need to cut cost and/or find other revenue sources to stay in business. There are news websites that offer premium contents for paid subscription, such as Wall Street Journal. But a large percentage of the contents are free because there won't be enough visiting to generate any meaningful money through advertisements otherwise. In other words, free contents act as "search engine optimization" to bring in traffic from search engines as well as getting repeat visitors. Balancing the two (paid vs. free), with system in place to measure revenue and cost in real-time will separate the survivors and those headed for extinction.

Agree: I agree with this statement as although he states what the online/digital world is doing, he is also in favour for there being newspapers to be sold being a positive. Also, due to the free content, he states that this may lead to more people wanting to use this compared to having pay for the news papers which is something that people should think about and how newspapers and do something about this.

First, there is the familiar industrial dynamic in which leaders raised in one world are taken aback to find they have underestimated the power of an emerging paradigm.

Agree:Due to the fact that the internet is taking over and is underestimated as to powerful it can actually be and how not everyone within the newspaper industries notice this as he states an 'emerging paradigm' and how this may be disastrous within the near future. 

I believe that this biased discussion as to whatever the author was talking about was correct and meant that to a certain level as his discussion between both newspapers and the internet were valid. As a wise man once said 'The internet is the new world.' meaning that I agree with this argument because without internet, I believe that news would not spread as quickly as it would with newspapers and the television. Also, due to the convenience factor of everyone within today's society purchasing new and digital forums/ devices such as iPads, laptops, android phones etc as to where they can get this information off, which is a very big positive for the new generation of the world. However, on the other hand, this man also vouches for newspapers and believes that they can still be very resourceful as if the organisations work hard by being/ competing with these other media platforms then they can not die promptly.