Are the Paywalls the Answer to Journalism?

by Ellie Williams-Brown

The internet appeared to be a gift to journalism - offering a place where readership could expand, new ways to interact with the audience,  a range of views would be read,  and help the industry to thrive. However, while some of this has happened, there has also been a downside. The internet has created echo-chambers and has led to a reduction in print media, with many publications closing and some legacy media moving online, such as The Independent. Opinions on this shift away from print vary, but one tactic by media magnates and companies to falling sales has been the introduction of paywalls. When the average person spends more than 5.5 hours a day on digital media, it makes sense to try and capitalise on the digital consumption instead of pushing failing print media.

There are two different types of paywall - hard and soft. A hard paywall allows either no or minimal free content before readers have to pay, while the latter provides significant access to free content if users subscribe. Whilst this extra step in accessing content may be frustrating for some readers, it reminds us that journalism is worth paying for. Funding local and national newspapers is important for both educating the public and ensuring they are not turning to overly biased online news sources who have no incentive to publish factual information, unlike many newspapers who have signed the IPSO Editor’s Code of Practice. Whilst there are many major newspapers with undeniable bias - the Sun and the Mail rely on provocative statements and outlandish claims - this is still a way to at least hold them to the account of truth. With online news sources, there cannot be a claim that there is any real mechanism to hold them to the same level, spare in the court of public opinion.

The main argument against paywalls is that it will push readers away to different publications - why would anyone pay to read an article that they can get for free from a reasonably similar news outlet? The competition with free media means paid news needs to have something inherently better that defends its right to charge readers. There are numerous sites offering news of a similar quality, and people can usually turn on a TV for news anyway. The New York Times lost 10% of its online readership with two years of a paywall and The Times and the Sunday Times had their pageviews plummet by 90%. If paywalls are to be introduced and readership continue, papers should be able to justify why their newspaper is of a better quality, or a nuanced view which ensures people will be paying, and consistently.

A major counter-argument to paywalls is whether they can work in conjunction with journalism’s main aims to educate and inform. The oppression of the press is one of the most grievous things a country can do as the media has a key role as the Fourth Estate to hold government and authority to account, as well as  can educating readers on national and global issues. Arguably, paywalls could be seen as a new form of  censorship, restricting information from the poor and allowing it for those who are better-off. Making people pay for online news can be seen as the withholding of information, especially for those who cannot afford it. But, people have always had to pay for the news, this only presents a problem now as it can turn some to less credible news sources that remain free. However, if there are no paywalls to provide a revenue stream for those “credible news sources” how much longer will they be here?,  Media companies have all suffered from falling advertising revenue, as well as a loss in sales. The Guardian offers an example of a legacy media company who has yet to introduce a paywall, instead relying on a membership model that allows more content and special events for members. This suggests to survive without a paywall a loyal base will be necessary, but it does work. In the 2016-17 financial year, the Guardian increased its digital revenue by 15% - to £94.1m - which includes the membership income, whereas ad revenue grew by less than 10%.

The struggle with paywalls and the restriction of information are seen especially with ‘big news’. When 23 Russian diplomats are expelled from Britain after a suspected state-sponsored assassination, it is important people are educated and know what happened. Should paywalls should come down for so-called big news? This would create another problem, firstly who decides what is “big news” and would all media follow suit?b. Nevertheless, news sources can defend their paywalls by suggesting all readers can discover an event through the BBC which is funded by the licence fee but free at the point of delivery.. This could work especially as people might be encouraged to only read the ‘free’ news, as by showing not making an article free, it would be brushed off as unimportant. However, the counter argument to this is the British appetite for sensationalist celebrity news, as shown by the fact the tabloids are top of the sales figures.

A key problem with paywalls is that it could create an incentive for newspapers to write only what their readers agree. This has always been the case to a certain extent in journalism, people enjoy reading what they agree with - if you support the Conservatives you are likely to read the Telegraph or the Daily Mail. But, this was not inherently a problem as newspapers were only competing with a couple of others who would support a certain party, and there would still be attempts to be somewhat moderate to attract as broad a readership as possible. In contrast, now there are boundless newspapers with a range of political inclinations. For print media, or paid media in general, to continue there is an urge to push views a bit more radical, a bit more extreme, so readers can nod along and be incentivised to buy a newspaper which pushes an agenda and message they can agree with.

It is natural to suppose paywalls would be adding to the revenue, but through them ad revenue may decrease as the payments relate to page views. This could mean advertisers will turn to news sources with free articles. However, ad blockers are already damaging the success of ads. The Guardian reported £53m in losses in 2015, due not only to a decline in print media but also in a lack of digital revenues. This suggests paywalls offer a good alternative, especially ones which come down when an ad blocker is installed - as with The Atlantic.  Paywalls have worked for the Washington Post and the New York Times, but this has not been a widespread success, especially when not every major newspaper is offering a paywell. If good quality newspapers will offer free journalism, whilst the rest will not, it is likely most casual readers will move on.

Paywalls are not a perfect solution, they create problems and restrict journalism. But, something is needed to save the media. Journalism should not be reliant on a select few, but it should not have its main form be articles published from anyone who can publish anything with no factual constraints. If paywalls are introduced nationwide, as some suggest, it could help ensure that people do not automatically go where news is free, whatever the quality; but then everyone in the UK could just turn to the BBC. Perhaps paywalls offer a temporary solution, they cannot be seen as permanent with the ability to save journalism. It is up to each newspapers discretion to decide whether they should be used as theis success is so subjective.