« Credibility and blogging | Main | Bad meteorology costs money »

February 26, 2005

Comments

Ginny

~Just a hello from me. Glad to see you moved to typepad so I don't have to post under "anonymous" anymore!

tavoliero

yes

Karen

The three newspapers I try to read are:
thestar.com
www.nationalpost.com
www.globeandmail.com

News site: www.pulse24.com

They all used to be free.

Now, you can't read anything on The Star without registering ("it's free!") Some irrational part of me resists registering, even if it's free. I just skim the headlines and if something looks good I'll try to find it on another site.

The National Post has some content for free, some is subscriber-only. A bit annoying, but there's enough on there to read.

The Globe and Mail also has this register-for-free thing going on. I refuse to register there, as well. Sometimes they'll block your access to an article until you register. Sometimes they'll let you read without a hassle. Also a bit annoying.

Pulse 24 is a local news site (really just the leavings of the associated TV station.) Free, but lower-quality reporting.

Maybe the free sites are getting by on ad revenues? I've wondered about free online papers. I buy a paper newspaper less than once a month - I just don't read enough of it and it's a pain to have the things lying around. I've thought that maybe a newspaper can't afford NOT to post their stuff online and make it available for free - if readership goes down, so does their influence with the public.

I'm too cheap to pay for online news. I think about the good old days of the Internet when everything was lawless and free. :)

anselm

Hey me too, I don't pay for any newspaper but the WSJ. I do kind of rotate around magazines though, a little new Republic, or Commentary, or NR, but never more than one at a time.

dadahead

I refuse to pay for online content. I used to subscribe to Salon, but then Salon started to suck and piss me off, so I stopped.

I'll sit through an ad. I'll register. But I won't pay.

There's just too much free content out there, and nothing's like unmissable.

dadahead

I think this part of the Wired article is the key:

"Most importantly, the Journal could secure its legacy as one of the world's great newspapers, both off- and online. And what's that worth?"

I have no clue if it would be more profitable or not, but opening up their pages to the internet users would give them a much bigger sphere of influence--which is what they're really about, no?

Ron Chusid

It's a business decision for each individual publication. Do they benefit more from the increased publicity, and possibly ad sales, or does this just cut into paid circulation? Does the internet sales provide meaningful income?

Personally I previously subscribed to the print edition of the WSJ, and changed to the internet version when available. It's cheaper, allows me to read from home or office at any time, and reduces the clutter from newspapers piling up waiting to be recycled. While others see it as a choice of free material versus paying more for a paid site, I saw it as a choice of paying less to get the online version as opposed to the print version.

Of course I do not share the adversion to paid internet content which others express. I also subscribe to Salon. There are also several publications where there is not the option of on line version only, so I get the print editions but primarily read them on line.

A RICH ASIAN GUY

See Asian men vigorously fucking and pounding away at hot tight white pussies.

!!!CLICK ON THE "POSTED BY:" LINK BELOW!!!

A RICH ASIAN GUY

See Asian men vigorously fucking and pounding away at hot tight white pussies.

!!!CLICK ON THE "POSTED BY:" LINK BELOW!!!

A RICH ASIAN GUY

See Asian men vigorously fucking and pounding away at hot tight white pussies.

!!!CLICK ON THE "POSTED BY:" LINK BELOW!!!

The comments to this entry are closed.