Is the Internet Bad News? The Online News Era and the Market for High-Quality News
We review and model the impact of the internet on the production and uptake of high- quality news. Our review of trends in the market for news suggests 3 stylized facts: i) particular quality news markets are dominated by merely a few providers, ii) demand for quality news appears stable, but provision of news has become specialized; mainstream news is decoupled from quality news, and iii) the dominant business model of internet news mirrors that of radio, television, and newspapers in that costs of news production are recouped via advertising. We build a stylized model that rationalizes these facts. Our model captures three conflicting effects: (1) economies of scale in the production of news lead to monopolies on particular markets, (2) easy access to information on the internet makes it cheaper to provide high-quality news and to disseminate it via the web, which increases the production of such news; and (3) the existence of bloggers and news aggregators who recycle the stories of news-providers reduces the effective property rights of high-quality news producers, thus forcing the business model of the internet to be advertising-based. For the most likely cases, our model would imply that the internet does not constitute bad news for the provision and uptake of quality news.
|Date of creation:||May 2009|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Matthew Gentzkow, 2007. "Valuing New Goods in a Model with Complementarity: Online Newspapers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(3), pages 713-744, June.
- Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2006.
"Media Bias and Reputation,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(2), pages 280-316, April.
- Jeffrey Milyo & Tim Groseclose, 2005. "A Measure of Media Bias," Working Papers 0501, Department of Economics, University of Missouri, revised 25 Aug 2005.
- Baron, David P., 2006. "Persistent media bias," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(1-2), pages 1-36, January.
- George, Lisa, 2007. "What's fit to print: The effect of ownership concentration on product variety in daily newspaper markets," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(3-4), pages 285-303, October.
- Kaiser, Ulrich & Wright, Julian, 2006.
"Price structure in two-sided markets: Evidence from the magazine industry,"
International Journal of Industrial Organization,
Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 1-28, January.
- Kaiser, Ulrich & Wright, Julian, 2004. "Price Structure in Two-sided Markets: Evidence from the Magazine Industry?," ZEW Discussion Papers 04-80, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
- Sendhil Mullainathan & Andrei Shleifer, 2005.
"The Market for News,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1031-1053, September.
- Lapo Filistrucchi, 2005. "The Impact of Internet on the Market for Daily Newspapers in Italy," Economics Working Papers ECO2005/12, European University Institute.
- David Str–mberg, 2004.
"Mass Media Competition, Political Competition, and Public Policy,"
Review of Economic Studies,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 265-284, 01.
- David Str�mberg, 2004. "Mass Media Competition, Political Competition, and Public Policy," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 71(1), pages 265-284.
- repec:oup:qjecon:v:91:y:1977:i:1:p:103-26 is not listed on IDEAS
- Brian G. Knight & Chun-Fang Chiang, 2008.
"Media Bias and Influence: Evidence from Newspaper Endorsements,"
NBER Working Papers
14445, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Chun-Fang Chiang & Brian Knight, 2011. "Media Bias and Influence: Evidence from Newspaper Endorsements," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 78(3), pages 795-820.
- repec:oup:qjecon:v:116:y:2001:i:3:p:1009-1025 is not listed on IDEAS
- repec:oup:qjecon:v:120:y:2005:i:4:p:1191-1237 is not listed on IDEAS
- Sendhil Mullainathan & Andrei Shleifer, 2002.
Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers
1981, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:15723. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.