Major British newspaper's decision to charge for online content
Read this short blog post on a major British newspaper's decision to charge for online content
Whether, and how much, newspapers should charge for online content is a contentious question. What role, if any, does the price elasticity of demand for
online news content play in this debate?
Your Task: You are free to access the Internet, textbook, and course notes while writing your response. Responses are to be no more than 500 words.
This discussion is setup different than you may be used to. Instead of each student starting their own thread, you will respond and reply within a single
thread. The first person to post DOES NOT answer all parts of the question but starts the discussion. Subsequent responders should not repeat answers but
should pick up where the conversation left off and build on it. Once the initial question has been addressed, use the below questions for furthering the
discussion.
These additional prompts/responses can be used to stimulate discussion:
“If people value journalism, they should pay for it.” What key economic concepts are being considered within that statement?
Why is charging for access sometimes viewed as a high-risk strategy?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a strategy?
Which consumers do you think will be most affected by this strategy?
What determines the magnitude of the price elasticity? Do you expect it to be elastic or inelastic?
Individual Comment on Peers' Responses: Carefully read through your peers' responses and choose at least 2 to respond to. Please be as specific as
possible in your comments. Comments may offer constructive critiques, highlight fellow students’ creativity, point out areas of overlap with other students’
comments or other course themes, build upon fellow students’ insights by adding your interpretation, or ask for clarification.
https://www.emarketeers.com/e-insight/times-and-sunday-times-online-move-to-subscriiption-model/
irst, it is never just to intentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittola’s first proposition. This is widely accepted as ‘all people have a right not to be killed’ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by “non-combatant immunity” (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: ‘care must be taken where evil doesn’t outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would come at a cost. However, this does not hide the fact the unintended still killed innocent people, showing immorality in their actions. Thus, it depends again on proportionality as Thomson argues (Frowe (2011), Page 141).
This leads to question of what qualifies to be a combatant, and whether it is lawful to kill each other as combatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’