'Build the Wall' Analysis

• Section 1: Simon addresses his extreme certainty that news journalism should be appreciated, through the hard efforts that are put into it and this must be highlighted through consumers paying for the high quality provided by the news institutions. In Simon's eyes: A pay wall is non-negotiable and all news institutes should join forces and abide by this
• Section 2: This section expresses the falling moment in which industry leaders, misused the internet as mere advertising scheme, instead of creating pay wall from the start, and how this is a dominant factor infringing upon how they can set up a pay wall now
• Section 3: Simon insights an audience towards the fact that the damage was caused before it was even recognised - newspaper's overall agenda to fill pages of articles and advertisement isn't coherent for a social climate that is constantly prone to change
• Section 4: Simon evaluates the altering outcomes in which the 'Times' and 'The Post' will face if they take the plunge and the build the wall, which is what Simon desperately thinks will have long term benefits

Content matters and professional journalism matters, therefore the content should not be made free. Simon is fully aware that if one company goes behind the pay wall they would most likely be destroyed, he realises that this is apparent, however thinks that all news institutions should be behind the pay wall in order for good quality professional journalism to be written. David Simon argues how print journalism is dying out due to the fact that there is free newspaper content available online. He states how online subscriptions are a bad idea. Also, he states how there is a "mix of journalism" that justifies a subscription fee. Considering the fact whether readers may not pay for what they have already accepted as free, the industry mistook the Internet as a "mere advertising opportunity" for their product in the first place. Readers rightly identify the immediate “digitized version” of newspapers as superior due to the advances in new and digital media. The internet content is free and this allows citizen journalism to be dominant in how audiences receive their news. News can also be provided through blogs, news web, therefore this highlights how the print newspaper is diminished. Furthermore, David Simon analyses how the decline in newspapers leads to a reduction in staff. The example provided is from ‘The Sun’ where the staff dropped drastically from 500 to 160. There is major risk behind the paywall as newspapers have to ensure their audience are engaged with the content all the time.

This article is based around the effects of the internet and blogs and the positive and negative issues that it poses. A wide range of opinions and debates can be enabled and the amount of information available is so vast, however Grayling also suggests that nervous governments may start to police the internet in order to find information. Certain things that should be kept quiet can also go viral in seconds - there is also a lot of rubbish on the internet. The difference between US journalism and Britain is the fact that Britain uses national news, therefore the opinions would be more uniform than those in US. The influence of blogs are that journalist criticisms can be seen by all, therefore could be easily castigated, which would mean they would have to create a more reliable document, which would enhance its function and overall be more informative. Overall the article does slate the internet and bloggers but the main argument is positive as the 4 main functions are to inform, challenge, explore and debate; therefore if blog posts are made online and exposed for all to see it would allow users to be able to comment on these posts and therefore question/challenge the journalist - due to journalists not wanting to be challenged and simply wanting to inform users, they would therefore make it in their best interest to create articles that are reliable and fulfil its function and purpose - I think this is one really big positive of the internet as it enables a lot of challenging debates to be argued. 

In my opinion, I think that Simon makes valid points in relation to the importance of professional journalists being credited for the work that they produce. I think that as the internet is becoming a new society in itself, with a plethora of accessibility for audiences to access. I think that it is only right that we pay for the standard of information that we consume from newspapers. In regards to the film industry, 'Netflix' - an international film streaming site, primarily available for those who take up a yearly subscription which subsequently allows audiences to consume as many films as they wish. Likewise, 'Newspapers' should too, embody this same strategy, as audiences have proven to be able to adapt to 'buying/subscribing' on the net - from buying dvds, to subscribing to an online streamer.  Therefore, these audiences should have no issue with doing purchasing their news. In addition,creating a pay wall across the digital newspapers, this will be successful for the young and upcoming generation who are most familiar with the digital platform, than print. Specifically, it is ideal that newspapers put online content behind a pay wall so journalist's work are appreciated and the print platform's legacy lives on - paying for content that is high in quality, as oppose to free inaccurate links on social mediums, e.g. Twitter. To finalise, I would be willing to pay for news as I think it is essential that journalists, researchers and editors are all recognised and valued for their great impact into informing nations and I think that if they aren't, this could detrimentally effect the quality of news that we start to receive.