« Singapore - Capitalism without democracy is exploitation | HomePage | Singapore - Straits Times Decreasing Traffic »
29/05/2007
Singapore - Straits Times Decreasing Traffic
Listen to this article
Found On Singapore Election
When The Straits Times started charging for access all those years ago it was the wrong move. Why pay to access the reporting of a mass media outlet that is ranked either 147th or 154th in the world depending on your ranking source. The paper is losing revenue as are so many other newspapers around the world. The 20 - 30 generation are going online to get news that matters to them. Not news filtered by a process of 'self-censorship' or by a regime that demands control over all that is written.
Simply no longer charging visitors to view your advertisements and state-controlled press releases is not going to turn the fortunes of the ST around over night. Trying to isolate yourself from the global market of media and cultural production by charging your readers and hoping that they show loyalty to you was mis-guided. But until the Straits Times journalists are able to compete on the global playing-field without the dead-weight of self-censorship and state control - all the technology in the world will not alter the image of the Straits Times as a state owned and controlled propaganda outlet.
FROM Tuesday, visitors to The Straits Times' (ST) website will not have to pay to read the latest breaking news from Singapore and the world.
They can also post their views - in real time - on the reports they read.
One other major change: The site will drop its 12-year-old name, The Straits Times Interactive, or STI, and go with the cleaner 'straitstimes.com'.
Since becoming a subscription site in 2005, it has been offering only a small buffet of material for free:
1. ST's online forum letters;
2. Multimedia features, such as video news reports and podcasts;
3. A restricted selection of 20 reports from the print edition.
All other content, including breaking news and material picked up from the print edition of the newspaper itself, has been available only to subscribers in the past two years.
Explaining the move to open up more free-access content, ST editor Han Fook Kwang said: 'There's a great deal more we can do in the website to leverage on the award-winning talent in The Straits Times newsroom of writers, photographers, artists and designers. I think we've a good product and we want to make it available to more people in cyberspace, and to use the technology available on the web to make it an even better product.'
Here is the real reason ....
15:05 Posted by soci | Permalink | Comments (9) | Email this | Tags: Singapore, New Media, Media
Comments
the only US paper that succeeded in maintaining suscription only access is Wall Street Journal; even Microsoft's Slate magazine failed in its introduction of subscriber-only access, which was abandoned after less than a year; Microsoft eventually sold Slate to Washingtonpost
there is therefore nothing special about ST not being able to keep up the subscriber numbers; Business Times has been subscriber-only longer than ST, and seems (we dont really know) to be holding out; maybe, like Wall Street Journal, it caters to companies that are willing to pay
Posted by: sgsociety.com | 29/05/2007
a major problem with subscriber only access is that news.google.com would not index it, and the paper misses out on searches, which would produce hits on Today and Channel News Asia instead
Posted by: sgsociety.com | 29/05/2007
Nothing like a good-old "market signal" to keep producers on their toes.
The Customeri snot only always right, he is Sovereign!
Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 30/05/2007
Anyway, no loss to me.
It just confirms what we already know all these years.
Many of my cohorts and I do not buy the Straits Times for many years.
When we see certain reports in the local papers, and compare similar news in the Internet and the wireline services, we will invariably notice a certain slant to the news reported in the local papers. There appears to be a hidden agenda. not once, but always. ..as if there is some censor-board overlooking the final print version.
(with some exception, especially on foreign news or articles written by some foreigners. But that too are not above board. as some of them are employed by our local papers).
On the other hand, we are relatively happy with the other paper, TODAY. Not perfect, though. Each copy gets circulated many times among friends and office colleagues.
It seems that TODAY reaches out to the intellectuals.
As for the Stratis Times, how many of us actually look at the Classified Ads , and the other sections. These end up with the kuning-kuni (old nerwspapers collectors) men.
What is the use of having highly paid reporters in the local press, giving us the mumbo-jumbo. Some articles are too superficial, too partonising (as if we are that stupid).
Are practising their English skills at our expense ?
My children dislikes reading the Staits Times.
They too prefer TODAY, as it can be easily held and have short stories, and do not sensationalise like some papers, including the Chinese local dailies.
Posted by: Peggy | 31/05/2007
> There appears to be a hidden agenda
not hidden at all. we all know SPH is the PR dept of Singapore Inc
>as if there is some censor-board overlooking the final print version.
not necessary; the journalists know their job
>(with some exception, especially on foreign news or articles written by some foreigners. But that too are not above board. as some of them are employed by our local papers).
not all foreign; Janadas Devan is Devan Nair's son (but he lives in Austin Texas)
>As for the Stratis Times, how many of us actually look at the Classified Ads , and the other sections. These end up with the kuning-kuni (old nerwspapers collectors) men.
but that is the whole point of SPH: it gets income from advertisements and uses the money to publish in a way that is positive for the Singapore economy, bringing in more advertisements...; Today has its uses too: it shows there is an alternative; your reaction to Today is exactly what the planners planned for
>What is the use of having highly paid reporters in the local press, giving us the mumbo-jumbo. Some articles are too superficial, too partonising (as if we are that stupid).
but penetrating analysis or poking fun at shortcomings would be contrary to the mission; even Today does little of these; it is merely simpler and more down to earth; remember Today's editor was replaced not long ago; life as journalists is very tough
Posted by: sgsociety.com | 31/05/2007
You are correct in yr assessment.
Thanks for your valuable feedback.
I hope that advertisers take stock of their advertisements and gauge for themselves the effectiveness of adverts in the print media.
Nielson and other independent agencies can conduct the research and come to the same conclusion which we all know for a long time.
For me and many contemporaries I know, we use the internet more often to look out for best buys and which product to buy (PC, TVs, etc...) or go directly to the shops and make any further enquiries or a purchase.
As for news, I checkout the yahoo.sg and bbc...etc websites.
For instance, from Yahoo.sg, I learnt today of the sad news of an accident in Mandai on Saturday.
There are so many news sources via the Internet and Cable TV (CNN, BBC, etc..). The print media is no longer the main source of news.
Posted by: Peggy | 03/06/2007
Recently release from CNN, David Kernell, the son of a member of the House of Representatives, Mike Kernell, allegedly reset the password and accessed the personal e-mail account of vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. He also allegedly read the contents, took a screenshot of her directory, and got into her address book information. Her address book contained the contact information including cell phone numbers of family members as well as birthdates and other information. He also then allegedly posted all of this including the password on a public website. After turning himself in, he pled not guilty. Kernell faces up to 5 years in prison, 3 years of probation and supervision after release, and up to $250,000 in fines. Think about this: to pay that down, he would have to take almost 200 payday loans at the maximum allowed amount of $1,500.
Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/
Posted by: Payday Loan Advocate | 16/10/2008
On Wednesday, October 14, 2008, the third and final U.S. Presidential Debate took place in Hempstead, New York. Illinois Senator Barack Obama came into the debate with an eight-point lead, according to an average of national polls as compiled by CNN. It seemed like Obama was content with that margin. Arizona Senator John McCain took advantage of Obama’s complacency and challenged his policies, judgment and qualities of character. When Obama criticized the economic policies of the Bush Administration, McCain quickly retorted by saying he is “not President Bush.” McCain stated that, as president, he would enact an “across the board spending freeze” in all government programs. On the contrary, Obama’s stance sounded more conservative; Obama proposed to “go through the federal budget page by page, line by line” in order to terminate programs that aren’t working as they should. Both candidates believe their economic plans will implement much needed change in a broken America, but will their plans leave consumers with the right to choose whether or not they’ll have access to payday loans? That remains to be seen. Americans live in “the land of the free,” and special interest groups (i.e. banks and credit unions) should not be able to steal our liberties.
Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/
Posted by: Payday Loan Advocate | 23/10/2008
Why would anyone read espercially THE STRAITS TIMES, which is a politically-controlled print media, when readers can get their international news right off the web?
Newspapers will soon be a thing of the past, as the readers get more sophiscated, and get their news instantaneously off the web? From various political opinions, stock market updates, all on the web?
Posted by: MC Harding | 05/12/2008