Will People Pay CNN To Help Them Report The News?

from the shouldn't-that-work-in-the-other-direction? dept

Thu, Oct 1st 2009 5:16am — Mike Masnick

I've been seeing good reviews for CNN's new iPhone app, that's apparently well-designed. Lots of people are pointing out that the app is being offered for $2, as they wonder if people will "pay for the news." Except, of course, anyone with an iPhone can access cnn.com for free via their browser. So, if they're paying for anything, it must be additional features or convenience that the app allows -- not the content itself. And, for all the good reviews of the app, there's one "feature" being promoted that I'm not so sure I understand. Everyone keeps talking up how the app will turn anyone with an iPhone into an on-the-spot reporter:

Among the high points of the CNN app: It offers the chance to essentially join the CNN reporting team. Readers are invited to submit their own photos and video clips to iReport, a feature CNN already uses on its Web site for gathering material from the public.

Reading this, all I can think is that CNN is asking people to pay it to work for CNN. If it works, bravo for CNN, but that does feel a little backwards, doesn't it? I can totally understand user-generated content sites where people do work for prestige rather than money, but I'm not sure how enticing it is to get people to pay to do work for you...

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: citizen journalism, iphone apps, news, reporting
Companies: cnn

81 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

John Doe, 1 Oct 2009 @ 5:33am

But won't citizen reporters kill real journalism? Just think what bloggers have done to bring down reporting I can only imagine that citizen reporters will finish it off.

Seriously though, read the fine print and I guarantee they can do anything they want with your submitted pictures and video, including profit off of it. Use one of their pictures though, and you will be hearing from their lawyers. Way to one sided for me to contribute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Misanthropist (profile), 1 Oct 2009 @ 5:36am
  
  Re:
  read the fine print and I guarantee they can do anything they want with your submitted pictures and video
  
  well.. duh... wtf you think people would submit the content for anyways? so it can go dusty while noone does anything with it?
  
  People WANT their stuff to get featured. it's a thrill for them. Morally non-corrupt people don't care if CNN makes money off it.
  
  If you didnt want your stuff to get used.. why else would you go through the effort of reporting it?
  
  /boggle
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Doe, 1 Oct 2009 @ 5:40am
    
    Re: Re:
    Dude, back away from the computer. Take a deep breath.
    
    My point is, I am not going to submit content to them for free when I can't use their content for free. See how that works, it is a relationship.
    
    So morally non-corrupt CNN should reciprocate right?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Misanthropist (profile), 1 Oct 2009 @ 5:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      My point is, I am not going to submit content to them for free when I can't use their content for free.
      
      So? Other's will, cause they have no interest in making commercial use of CNN's "stuff".
      
      They care about doing fun things, and being a part of reporting the news is fun for them.
      
      CNNs morality is a not really relevant. Sure, some people like yourself, will avoid this but not for the reasons you are trying to state; You will avoid taking part in this because you don't like CNN.
      
      And that's fine. There's plenty of people who don't have that opinion, or who find their opinion of the company to be irrelevant when it comes to their decision to have fun or not.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Doe, 1 Oct 2009 @ 6:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, you sure know how to jump to conclusions. First, I am not even talking about making commercial use of their "stuff". Lets say I blog about some particular topic. I also submit pics on occasion to this iPhone app. Then CNN runs a report on something I blog about and I embed their video in my blog. How long do you think it will take to get a nasty lawyergram from CNN?
        
        You also say CNN's morality is not relevant but in your first post you say that my morality is. Huh?
        
        Then you say that I don't like CNN. Do you assume I like Fox News? Do you think ANY news organization will have rules any different than CNN?
        
        Also, why get so testy about me and my reasons for not participating? I know there will be plenty of people who do and that is their choice just like I make my choice. Neither is right or wrong here, just personal decisions.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Misanthropist (profile), 1 Oct 2009 @ 6:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Seriously though, read the fine print and I guarantee they can do anything they want with your submitted pictures and video, including profit off of it.
        
        Read that sentence to yourself over and over again.
        
        Then you might understand just how much you said with those few words.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Doe, 1 Oct 2009 @ 6:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Use one of their pictures though, and you will be hearing from their lawyers. Way to one sided for me to contribute.
        
        Read the next sentence and you will see how much I said with those few words. Much like many news reports, you take a snippet of the conversation and try to twist it to say what you want it to say. Now take in the whole paragraph and you see what my complaint really is.
        My whole point is, the relationship is completely one sided. They can do anything they want with the stuff you submit including profit. You can do NOTHING with their stuff, even if you don't profit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Misanthropist (profile), 1 Oct 2009 @ 7:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Read the next sentence and you will see how much I said with those few words.
        
        Ya.. no actually.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2009 @ 7:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "There's plenty of people who don't have that opinion"
        
        Lets see, why would they not have other options? Maybe because the FCC and other government organizations limit competition on airwaves and cable and broadcast infrastructure. Why would they do that? Perhaps because the morally corrupt CNN and others have unethically lobbied for it. Uhm.... so morally non - corrupt would would not support such a corrupt organization.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2009 @ 9:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "CNNs morality is a not really relevant."
        
        Just goes to show the (one sided) mentality of intellectual property maximists. With their own words they destroy themselves.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2009 @ 10:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "So? Other's will, cause they have no interest in making commercial use of CNN's "stuff"."
        
        You're missing the point. The point is that people will still submit and broadcast news WITHOUT intellectual property laws and society does NOT owe CNN or anyone a monopoly/copyright on anything. If society is to have intellectual property laws they should not be one sided to the benefit of a rich and powerful corporation at the cost of society.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Robert Ring (profile), 1 Oct 2009 @ 6:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Misanthropist is right. There are plenty of people who will (and do) gladly send pictures/info/etc. to CNN just for the satisfaction of contributing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2009 @ 8:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and how much of that has to do with the fact that the government regulates the airwaves and the infrastructure and they regulate rights of way and who can build new infrastructure and who can use the existing infrastructure and who can broadcast on what frequencies where, etc... and they do so in favor of lobbyists who work for big corporations like CNN?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2009 @ 8:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How much of that has to do with the fact that the government creates one sided laws that are designed to give the corrupt mainstream media an unlevel playing field.
        
        Many of the people that do submit to news stations would much rather their work not be the copyright material of the news stations. But the laws are too one sided in favor of mainstream media to allow this.
        
        This is more evidence that intellectual property laws do little to help the author of material. They don't help the person who took the picture and submitted it, they help the rich and the powerful corporations that receive it. That's what the laws in this nation are designed to do, to give rich and powerful entities an unlevel playing field and it's the lobbying efforts of these big corporations, thanks to their lack of moral standards, that causes this.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - San Jose domestic violence lawyer, 1 Oct 2009 @ 9:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Those plenty of people are already doing it. Live blogging from accidents, twitter updates of how bad a storm is, all CNN is doing is lending credibility to the otherwise unaccredited masses.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ..., 1 Oct 2009 @ 5:59am
    
    Re: Re: Logic Fail
    Living up to your name I see.
    
    Will CNN give credit to the person who submits data?
    By submittal, does that person lose all rights associated with that data?
    
    Yes, the only reason a morally non-corupt person would send CNN data they gathered is for the thrill of it all. Certainly, there would be no other reason.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Misanthropist (profile), 1 Oct 2009 @ 6:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Logic Fail
      Will CNN give credit to the person who submits data?
      The submitter won't likely care.
      
      By submittal, does that person lose all rights associated with that data?
      That is assumed.
      
      Yes, the only reason a morally non-corupt person would send CNN data they gathered is for the thrill of it all
      Right.
      
      Certainly, there would be no other reason.
      The sarcasm is strong in this one, but you are missing the point. This platform is not about amateurs making a few bucks off their hobby.. this is a platform to enable participants to participate for the thrill of participation.
      
      Kinda like the comments section of this blog.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Doe, 1 Oct 2009 @ 6:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Logic Fail
        Again, it really isn't much participation if you do all the giving and they do all the taking. Are they going to share their content with you? I mean after all, you submit pictures and videos that they run with why can't you embed a photo or video they produced into your website or blog?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Misanthropist (profile), 1 Oct 2009 @ 7:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Logic Fail
        They are giving people a platform. Not asking them to wed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Doe, 1 Oct 2009 @ 7:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Logic Fail
        Well, technically they aren't giving them a platform, it costs $2.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2009 @ 8:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Logic Fail
        Only to the extent that it maximizes their profits, not because they are acting morally. Furthermore, they are using the government to take control of cableco infrastructure and take control of airwaves, hence unethically TAKING the platform that doesn't belong to them to begin with to use it for the sole purpose of maximizing their profits. They only "give" to the extent that it helps their profits and even then they charge.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - ..., 1 Oct 2009 @ 7:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Logic Fail
        I did not say anything about profit.
        A big issue they will have is that the person who submits the content can no longer use that content without the threat of lawsuit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2009 @ 7:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Morally non-corrupt people don't care if CNN makes money off it. "
    
    Morally non - corrupt people would not want CNN or anyone to hold a copyright on material they submit. They would want to submit the work so that the world can benefit, not so that some entity can have control over how much the world benefits and only allow the world to benefit to the extent that it helps that entity out.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2009 @ 7:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    and if CNN were morally non - corrupt they wouldn't copyright everything that people submit and go after everyone for copyright infringement. Morally non - corrupt people wouldn't want to support a corrupt organization like CNN.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 1 Oct 2009 @ 7:51am
  
  Re:
  only one question .... are we sure it was CNN that created the app or was it a third party .... if it was a third party then the point made by mike ...
  
  "Reading this, all I can think is that CNN is asking people to pay it to work for CNN"
  
  is moot ...
  
  but this is Rupert Murdoch we are talking about... so it was probably created by CNN
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 1 Oct 2009 @ 8:00am
    
    Re: Re:
    "but this is Rupert Murdoch we are talking about... so it was probably created by CNN"
    
    Murdoch owns CNN too? I thought it was just Fox News....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Free Capitalist (profile), 1 Oct 2009 @ 12:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Ted Turner once tried to "bum" a dollar off me in front of the St. Francis. True story.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dark Helmet (profile), 1 Oct 2009 @ 1:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, don't leave us hanging: did you give it to him?
        
        Me? I would have told him that when he can figure out how NOT to show Twister nine gazillion times a year on TBS, he'll get his dollar...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Free Capitalist (profile), 2 Oct 2009 @ 6:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (This was in 98 or so)
        It was a curious situation. I was at the St. Francis for an AT&T tech symposium at the time, and when I went out front on a break, Ted was milling around out front with his sidekick.
        
        I didn't recognize the man at the time, but he was going on about 'its crazy how many beggars there are in this city, right down Van Ness .. blah blah' (he was actually right of course, its was a big racket in SF at the time). Then I heard him say something like, "i've got to give this a try", and he walked right up to me, asking adamantly..
        
        "Hey, you got a minute? Can I bum a dollar for lunch??"
        
        At the time, I was even less subtle than I am today, if you can imagine that. I glanced at his haircut, his tailored 'casual wear', the fine watch, then down to his alligator skin shoes, and noticed his sidekick was wearing the same thing. I repled, "I don't think so, buddy!".
        
        He chuckled at me and said "you're alright" then milled around on the sidewalk asking passersby the same. Most flat out ignored him, didn't even look. One guy was walking by talking on a cell phone, and he looked at Ted with recognition, pointed and belly laughed, but walked on not breaking stride or hanging up.
        
        It wasn't until a few minutes later, when glancing at his watch he complained "Women! They make you wait, that's their purpose in life, making you wait".
        
        He came back over to me and complained about women on this same line for a minute, when I suddenly recognized Jane Fonda walking out of the St. Francis taking up Ted and whisking him away to a Giants game.
        
        This is the man who gave the U.N. a billion dollars. I should have told him, "sure, here's a dollar... can I bum a million?"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Oct 2009 @ 6:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sigh, Bilderburger CFR members begging for a dollar....somehow I'm just glad he didn't kill you and take it instead.
        
        In any case, that IS an awesome story...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Free Capitalist (profile), 6 Oct 2009 @ 9:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
maclizard (profile), 1 Oct 2009 @ 5:43am

Good for CNN
I think that their app is a good example of added value. Now, granted that it is just a repackaging of something that is already out there for free, but if the fact that there is now a CNN app pushes people to pay then I can only assume that added some value. People won't pay for things they don't want or need and people won't pay for what is already free. So, you have to decide whether the app is worth the money and at $2 I would have to say its worth checking out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2009 @ 6:14am

Spin
Reading this, all I can think is that CNN is asking people to pay it to work for CNN. If it works, bravo for CNN, but that does feel a little backwards, doesn't it?

It all depends on how you spin it. If you can get people to buy pet rocks, you can probably get them to pay to work for you too. I'm convinced that the most valuable skill for success in life today is the ability to run one's mouth and make people think what you want them to. If you can do that, they'll do anything, even send their children off to die for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ..., 1 Oct 2009 @ 6:18am
  
  Re: Spin
  "the ability to run one's mouth and make people think what you want them to"
  
  Fox News iPhone app - I cant wait /s
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2009 @ 7:36am
    
    Re: Re: Spin
    I am not sure Apple would sell an iPhone to a Fox News fan. Wouldn't that be too "uncool"?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2009 @ 6:14am

NOT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2009 @ 6:19am

The people who buy this are the same people that send their personal info to Nigeria to clain their 15 million dollars

WHAT A SCAM!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LoL, 1 Oct 2009 @ 6:21am

Can't understand the morality.
I see none, people will do it if they wish to, and if they feel bad about it they will stop. There is no morals involved. People use social networks that have EULA's that say they don't own what they put up there why it would be different with the CNN thing?

The one thing I think they made a mistake is the $1 dollar rule. In an age where you can find things in abundance $2 dollars seems overpriced. People want to be part of lots of sites and not just one or two is like missing a limb or something and it also make people start thinking about quality and complain if it was priced at cents they would be in the "WTF! why not?" area.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Mexico Mark, 1 Oct 2009 @ 6:22am

Apparantly CNN has a fence...
and some whitewash. Shucks, they're not going to let just ANYBODY paint their fence. Ya better be prepared to chip in a little for that privilege.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2009 @ 8:17am
  
  Re: Apparantly CNN has a fence...
  Huckle berry fin. good example.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2009 @ 11:38am
    
    Re: Re: Apparantly CNN has a fence...
    Huckle berry fin. good example.
    
    Tom Sawyer from "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Xyro TR1 (profile), 1 Oct 2009 @ 6:37am

I don't think that's the point
Well, following your formula, CNN is connecting with fans (allowing them to report for CNN) and giving them a reason to buy (the extra content on the app), and seems to be doing well from it.

Now that dosen't mean they can't also implement the "report for CNN" elsewhere, but at this time, the current strategy seems to be the winning one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 1 Oct 2009 @ 6:43am
  
  Re: I don't think that's the point
  That was kinda my thought to. They are directly connecting with their user base, though I think the RtB is tied to the thrill of having initiated a CNN report that goes international (possibly).
  
  I'm assuming that there is SOME recognition of the originator of the story, and there is probably a certain value to potentially having your name attached to such a story.
  
  Could story originators this way use that as a way to promote themselves as "guerilla (sp?) journalists"? Or something for journalism students or aspiring reporters to include in the footnotes of a resume? I see value there as well....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Doe, 1 Oct 2009 @ 6:55am
    
    Re: Re: I don't think that's the point
    They aren't connecting with fans, fans are connecting with them. They will not reciprocate by letting you use their content, they will retaliate by unleashing their lawyers on you. That is not truly connecting with fans is it?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Misanthropist (profile), 1 Oct 2009 @ 7:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re: I don't think that's the point
      They will not reciprocate by letting you use their content, they will retaliate by unleashing their lawyers on you.
      
      Right war, wrong battle.
      
      Yes, its connecting with fans, cause its providing them with something they want. No, its not connecting with you, cause its not providing what you want, but thats irrelevant. It is connecting with other people who don't have your moral dilemna.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Doe, 1 Oct 2009 @ 7:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think that's the point
        So it is connecting with people with no morals?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Misanthropist (profile), 1 Oct 2009 @ 8:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think that's the point
        So it is connecting with people with no morals?
        
        Read: Wikipedia: Moral Dilemna and be enlightened.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Doe, 1 Oct 2009 @ 8:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think that's the point
        I see humor is lost on you, as most other things as well.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Misanthropist (profile), 1 Oct 2009 @ 8:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think that's the point
        I see humor is lost on you, as most other things as well.
        
        I see the point is lost on you. Very well, I give up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Doe, 1 Oct 2009 @ 9:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think that's the point
        Nice attempt at rewriting history. Fortunately this history has a written record. You have repeatedly ignored my point and gone off point. So I attempted humor and you didn't get that either. So please do give up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dark Helmet (profile), 1 Oct 2009 @ 7:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think that's the point
        Right. I don't think CwF has anything to do with direction (i.e. whether THEY are connecting with YOU or vice versa). The point is the connection. As soon as you make the "fan" feel like a part of the experience, like they're being paid attention to, like they're a part of the overall experience, then you're going to increase the bond between buyer and seller, and those bonds almost always produce results.
        
        If the CNN reader values recognition in a CNN story (I probably would, though not to a huge degree), then that feature of the app might be worth paying for. If the same fan understands the way they're submission might be used...well I guess I just don't see the problem, other than any hypocrisy that might exist depending on CNN's past stances on blog-journalism or new media (don't really know what they've said/done on those issues in the past).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2009 @ 8:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think that's the point
        To the extent that CNN has a government sanctioned unlevel playing field I ABSOLUTELY DO see a problem.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 1 Oct 2009 @ 6:53am

No protection for 'non paid' bloggers, etc..

Forget it :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin (profile), 1 Oct 2009 @ 7:11am

From an iPhone no less
Why pay anything for an app when you can just navigate to their site via the built in browser? You can upload your videos and pictures from there as well. So I mean really what is the point? Seems to me that they are just trying to jump on the app store bandwagon in hopes of making a buck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
doug vannoni, 1 Oct 2009 @ 7:13am

Am I the only one?
...who's noticed that CNN has very slickly blurred the advertorial line by including ads in an app that people are paying for? And of course, who can blmae them for initiating a 2nd rev stream, but wow, nicely done CNN.

On start up I get told that Chevron is bringing this app to me. Really? I thought it was my $1.99 that got me the app. Then in stories & my favorite is the full screen roadblock ad I get while waiting for the video to load. A photo that looks like a news photo using a close-up of a young girl pensively looking into space for Lexus of course.

Aren't the ads supposed to be in a "free" version? Seems we've had us an unwritten app rule that free=ads and pay=contentonly, a nice rule that has set the new digital medium apart from it's newspaper & cable tv predecessors. However, maybe the new technology really can't escape the same old greed that's mucked up all the other stuff.

Seems to me, that above all else, if the CNN app is ultimately a success, it will show developers & advertisers alike that people really don't mind paying to see ads.

Great, so basically we've taken this new medium & as is human nature I guess, invested it with a bunch of crap. And if that's the case, then I for one would like to let us all know that we suck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Misanthropist (profile), 1 Oct 2009 @ 7:32am
  
  Re: Am I the only one?
  Aren't the ads supposed to be in a "free" version? Seems we've had us an unwritten app rule that free=ads and pay=contentonly, a nice rule that has set the new digital medium apart from it's newspaper & cable tv predecessors.
  
  When cable started, it was commercial free too. That didn't last long.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2009 @ 8:23am
    
    Re: Re: Am I the only one?
    Thanks to the lack of competition which is thanks to the government. The point is that commercial free cable is sustainable, but the problem is that selfish people use the government to reduce competition and exploit the public. The government should do more to ensure more competition and do less to restrict it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2009 @ 8:27am
    
    Re: Re: Am I the only one?
    "When cable started, it was commercial free too. That didn't last long."
    
    Yes, because lobbyists and selfish people worked hard to figure out ways to optimally monetize anything that provides any utility to anyone. and I imagine you're working hard for the same cause, to monetize any utility that anyone gets from anything and to restrict competition so that people have no choice but to pay insanely high prices for anything that provides any utility.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2009 @ 8:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Am I the only one?
      Heck, one can't even drive to the beach without paying the parking meters and those prices are going up even. They would tax the air you breath if they can.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2009 @ 8:37am
    
    Re: Re: Am I the only one?
    and I have little doubt that if the people don't stand up for what's right the Internet will turn into the overpriced nonsense that cable television has turned into. It's the government, ie: the FCC, that is responsible for the nonsense that cable television has turned into (thanks to selfish lobbyists and big corporations) and selfish lobbyists et al, the FCC, and the government are all working very hard to turn the Internet into the same exact nonsense.
    
    The problem, Americas are way too unwilling to stand up for what's right.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2009 @ 8:54am
    
    Re: Re: Am I the only one?
    "When cable started, it was commercial free too. That didn't last long."
    
    and I bet you're glad that it didn't last long, at least you seem to be. Something that doesn't exploit the public for every penny they have? Heaven forbid.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2009 @ 8:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Am I the only one?
      Just shows the mentality of intellectual property maximists.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Doug Vannoni (profile), 1 Oct 2009 @ 12:13pm
    
    Re: Re: Am I the only one?
    Not sure where you live, @Misanthropist, but when I first got cable in 1979, all the broadcast stations had their commercials from day one. And while the cable stations "experimented" with adding commericials, the broadcast stations never seemed to "experiment" by taking their commercials off.
    
    Thing is, we can all talk about lobbyists & coprporate $$$ ruinging our culture, and I totally agree on every front.
    
    This one, though, I think is wayyyy more simple. No one gives back a revenue stream, not in 1880, not in 1950, not in 1990 and certainly not in 2009 - maybe once every million years it happens.
    
    What we are is greedy and what we do is push things onto people, and when people don't make any noise, that's taken as acceptance & that's the end of the story.
    
    I for one am going to try to make some noise because the web really needs to remain the bastion of free-ness that is has been, but as we all know the lobbyists & corporate $$ can buy noisemakers that turn my tirade into nothing more than a faint hum. So come one peeps, FIGHT THE POWER!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marc, 1 Oct 2009 @ 7:28am

Rights?
RANT ON***
It strikes me that if we went back to requiring the registration of Copyright - we'd all be a little saner. I don't know what good it serves to force all works to be under Copyright when only a negligible fraction of works has any lasting economic value.

I mean other than these debates about what is fair or not. The natural state of expression is communal. Copyright is a priviledge extended to the holder. There is no reason to encumber this post or any other day to day expression we may see, hear, taste, touch, or feel with Copyright. Is there?
RANT OFF***

Getting back on topic - engaging your viewership like this can only help CNN. If for no other reason than CNN as a presence in the iPhone/iTouch space.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp (profile), 1 Oct 2009 @ 7:34am

I will kick you in the nuts. BEEFCAKE!!!!!!
So when I report it on my blog, it kills journalism, but when I report it to them, so they can repost it and profit from it, it is "real" journalism. Can I have what they are smoking?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2009 @ 7:39am

I think a lot of you guys might be forgetting that this is just one of the features of CNN's app. You're not paying $2 just for the ability to send stuff in, from what I understand you get a few other things as well. So it's not so much paying them just to help them report, it's paying for an app with multiple features, this being one among them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2009 @ 11:33am
  
  Re:
  You're not paying $2 just for the ability to send stuff in, from what I understand you get a few other things as well.
  
  Like some really swell adverts! I wonder if they'll come out with a premium version with even more adverts. Wow, I'd pay extra for that!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe, 1 Oct 2009 @ 8:08am

i was excited...till i saw the price
I saw the app advertised on CNN and thought oh great another way to access CNN without typing it in my ipod touch browser. Then i clicked and saw the price and promptly closed itunes.

I don't know why I would pay for a CNN app. Like you said I have a web browser so I don't see why I'd pay for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob (profile), 1 Oct 2009 @ 8:10am

More to it than iReport
I am a free app junkie but I didn't even blink at shelling out $1.99 for this app. Mine is a touch so can't even do the iReporting. There is live Cnn.com video streaming, archived video and text stories. With apple still not supporting flash video this is a great way to get the news and I personally don't mind paying for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LoL, 1 Oct 2009 @ 8:11am

Onion
When is the Onion lunching something like that?

I would submit some stories LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2009 @ 8:11am

cnn's new app
omg....i emailed them the day it came out re: the annoying advertising for it, and the fact that if i'm going to do someone elses job...i'm certainly not gonna pay THEM for it.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trails, 1 Oct 2009 @ 8:17am

Almost seems like they're following the techdirt play book though
1. Content no locked behind paywall - check
2. Trying to engage users in conversation, rather than unidirectional poon feeding news - check
3. Charge for value add - check

Having not bought or seen the app, I can say from 50,000 feet up, it seems fine to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Trails, 1 Oct 2009 @ 8:32am
  
  Re: Almost seems like they're following the techdirt play book though
  That should read "spoon feeding". Although "poon feeding" news would probably count as a reason to buy...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Misanthropist (profile), 1 Oct 2009 @ 8:38am
    
    Re: Re: Almost seems like they're following the techdirt play book though
    "poon feeding" news would probably count as a reason to buy
    
    I would buy an iphone just to buy that app.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 1 Oct 2009 @ 9:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Almost seems like they're following the techdirt play book though
      ""poon feeding" news would probably count as a reason to buy"
      
      I would buy an iphone just to buy that app."
      
      I keep trying to picture what an app "poon feeding" news would look like, but every time I do I picture a vagina gobbling up Ted Koppel head first and start snickering....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
taoareyou (profile), 1 Oct 2009 @ 9:24am

This is not a new concept
Make your work fun and people will pay to do it. Didn't Tom Sawyer get his friends to "pay" him in order to paint a fence that was his chore?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
faceless (profile), 1 Oct 2009 @ 12:09pm

Sounds like they're offering an easier way to view what you already can for free for the low price of $2, which isn't free, but is pretty close.

i don't have an iphone, and i wouldn't pay for this app even if i did, but i can see why some people would.

i wonder how long it will be until they start mentioning that some stories were "sent to us via our iphone app, available now!!!" and maybe the person's name...

that will only get more people more involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PrometheeFeu (profile), 1 Oct 2009 @ 2:21pm

Sounds amazing... If you get prestige from an article on a site nobody knows, think how much prestige you get on a site everyone knows...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2009 @ 12:40pm

CNN app is number #1 in paid section. Case closed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve, 5 Oct 2009 @ 7:40am

There WAS a day when news outlets actually paid for pictures and video. Now the mindless twittering masses just give the stuff away. If you've got the only footage of some sort of event, I'd be telling CNN to break out the cheque book not just handing it over for the chance to win a frickin' t-shirt or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
chandrashekhar wale, 15 Oct 2009 @ 3:49am

report
sir/madam i along with thousands are getting emails through internet from a company called DRUZEL OIL AND GAS LTD,103-107 INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT,SPINTEX ACCRA GHANA PHONE:+233240076936, with appointment letters for jobs of various categories for each individual.when contacted to counsallate of ghana in mumbai for confirmation of existance of company it proved to be fake.it is disgusting and very bad for thousands and thousands along the globe who are getting these emails in recession .afeeling of being played by somebody prevails.all the rot starts in world from such kinds of incidencts when one wants to lead morally correct life.as a major accepted accepted media in world and watched throughout globe please do stick these kinds of people who growing bold in their so called activities.thousands would feel relieved if show it on T.V. and even ghana government would awake with mischiefs done by using their countries address by this fake company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]