A British publisher says The New York Times will begin charging for online content within a few weeks, and he predicts that virtually all news organizations will charge within a year. Financial Times editor Lionel Barber says the sticking point is the method for collecting the monies. If that's solved...which sites will you pay for? It's going to be a very expensive game of chicken. The online media will be looking online visitors in the eye and saying pay or else. And the visitors will be either saying "no thanks"! Or "how much"? And if I had to pay to read that Financial Times article and then recommend it to you, would I?
Gonna' gig you here, Tim. In at least one of your posts you cited ethical concerns, so I'll cite a similar cause célèbre. ("Iron sharpens iron," you know...)
ReplyDeleteThe story to which you refer - in context - says, "The Financial Times editor, Lionel Barber, has predicted that "almost all" news organisations will be charging for online content within a year."
It quotes him as saying, "But I confidently predict that within the next 12 months, almost all news organisations will be charging for content."
Your use of the word "says," while grammatically proper, in this case/sense of use, implies a statement of fact. Thus, it's not appropriate.
While it is true that so-and-so said such-and-such, it tends in a very great way to lend credence to a thing or condition of a thing that is, not that could be. In other words, an unarguable truth.
The use of the conjunction "and," e.g., "... and he predicts..." - does not unify or join a thought or idea, but instead serves to separate two separate thoughts. A similarly expressive idea would be "like oil and water."
So, in your lead sentence, it would be more authentic - and ethical - to instead write something similar to this: "A British publisher predicts The New York Times will begin charging for online content within a few weeks..."
However, the variable nature of predictions being understood, it would be possible grammatically to anchor the statement with a validation, or source citation (the Financial Times being the credential) - to wit: "The Financial Times editor, Lionel Barber, has predicted that "almost all" news organisations will be charging for online content within a year."
Which, of course, is what was written to begin with.
But then... you DID write about needing an editor (that you didn't edit your own stuff), no? But how ethical is that? It's kinda' like preparing a cake, and serving the unbaked mix to one's guests as "cake."
At that point I will stop reading the NY Times completely. I already refuse to buy the paper and support the shoddy journalism of what was once an outstanding news organization.
ReplyDelete