The lengthy analysis of the implications of The Times paywall by Clay Shirky was highlighted here yesterday by Josh Halliday.
He picked up on Shirky's remark that the online Times is serving a niche audience and therefore becoming little more than the "online newsletter of the Tories". (A good debating point, but I'd lay odds that the audience is not as politically partisan as he suggests).
By contrast, Adam Tinworth lights upon another of Shirky's insights, arguing that it's "a point that's missed far too often in discussion of the economics of content online." Shirky wrote:
Newspapers compete with other newspapers, but newspaper websites compete with other websites.
I can't argue with the second half of the sentence, but the first is hopelessly wide of the mark.
Newspapers have competed with radio and television for more than half a century. Competed for audiences, competed for advertisers and competed in terms of journalistic content, not to mention entertainment.
I agree that it's good to have reminder that newspapers do not have the net to themselves (though I think we know that already).
Despite my objections to both of Shirky's claims, there is - as one would expect of him - much wisdom in his posting, which requires close reading. See George Brock's reaction for example.
