Fuck Newspapers
- Started
- Last post
- 39 Responses
- spot130
Just use Chrome in incognito mode, problem solved for almost all 'pay walls' with the exception of premium content which is usually just opinion articles anyway. Don't forget, these papers need social media sharing to make this work so you'll always get free access to content when you are coming from social media.
- CALLES0
KANNNNAAADAAAAAA
- instrmntl0
A freelance situation might be nice, but I imagine most reporters don't have time to do all the paperwork, hustling etc that come with the turf, as we all know so well. Like Fletch! I think newspapers are like health insurance. They need the overall revenue of the paper to pay for the journalists. Along with subscriptions, papers need to figure out another revenue source to replace ads. With the internet, I suppose people realize how much of the news we get is reuters and half assed summarized reports.
- prophetone0
so like where do you think you'll get that developed, localized content if they disappear? when you are eating Cheerios in the morning and watching the local morning news team where do you think they get 90% of their stories/discussion from? and on your way to work in the car your local radio station gets their local news from where exactly? newspapers. more now than ever because local tv and radio have depleted budgets nowadays, like everyone else.
now you may not care or prefer this but we are looking at a future of chicken nugget local stories if any and 90% national and/or celeb news. oh yeah and local politicians doing whatevs because they are no longer held to task on A1.
- prophetone0
good luck with that.
- detritus0
My first job was with a decent regional newspaper company here in the UK.
What I found interesting was their economics - in those pre-huge-internet days the newspaper itself (with a solid array of journalists, not merely some local newsdesk regurgiator) was paid for by the cost of the advertising it contained.
The cover price was largely a status thing, that money going to retail and delivery.
- colin_s0
paying for news is INCREDIBLY important.
newspapers are traditionally - and should remain - the public record. sure, organized news screws up from time to time, but most news on the internet in any aggregate form is based on the NYT or WSJ or the tribune company.
there's a reason wikileaks and snowden have worked with the guardian / nytimes / der spiegl. newspapers have foreign correspondents and the available space to write complicated, immersive stories that actually tell us about the world we live in. they don't rely on soundbytes or out-of-context clips in order to narrate.
complaining about newspapers charging for an incredibly important service is ridiculous.
- yup. frankly i'm tired of hearing idiots go on about how we don't need 'em anymore; should be free. good luck w/ ur 24hr perez hilton feed.prophetone
- hilton feed.prophetone
- if they can't figure out a way to make money through advertising then they should close shop._niko
- There's way too many papers out there anyway, all feeding us the same stories. The old model is dead._niko
- and what do smart people like yourself subscribe to?_niko
- democracy, freedom and as few news stories about lindsay lohan as possibleprophetone
- ukit20
"What I found interesting was their economics - in those pre-huge-internet days the newspaper itself (with a solid array of journalists, not merely some local newsdesk regurgiator) was paid for by the cost of the advertising it contained."
And for a lot of smaller local newspapers the local economy was actually a big source of funding. In the pre-internet age they basically had a monopoly on classified ads - if you wanted to sell some furniture, you'd take out an ad in the local paper. Which is why services like Craigslist and Ebay probably did as much to kill off local papers as free online news did.
- d_rek0
Sure, you can get your 'locally' aggregated content from the unregulated blogosphere and myriad aggregate news source. But the problem is they all lack any sort of credible journalistic reputation.
It's inevitable that newspapers will eventually move the bulk (if not all) of their content to be served up online to consumers. The problem is that they are owned by baby-booming dinosaurs who haven't figured out how to properly monetize the experience and perhaps more importantly, haven't figured out how to make it easier for millennials to subscribe to and consume that content.
People can and do pay for content. You just have to make it easy for them to do so. (Apple Store, Netflix, anyone?).
Until newspapers figure out a more robust and user-friendly way for users to subscribe to content online then they will continue to struggle. But they're not going anywhere. And they're not unimportant.
- moldero0
fuck that.
ill just download the news the next day on a torrent site.
"Oh its gonna rain yesterday"
- _niko0
Just curious to see if anyone here actually pays for digital news?
Anyone have a subscription?- yupprophetone
- I do.Continuity
- nytimescolin_s
- Yes. NYTIMES.jacklalane
- Ny times.instrmntl
- absolutely. nytimes.doesnotexist
- _niko0
So I'll pay the Star $19.99/month so that they can tell me that my idiot mayor had a drink on the Danforth? So what, Twitter and Facebook broke that nonsense hours before the Star did.
Any news of real importance or relevance will filter to you one way or another.
Just don't see the need for this, newspapers are operating under an old model, I'm sure they all carry tons of dead weight, they all need to learn to be leaner and more efficient in this digital age.
- old model yes, new models being tested, they are offloading tonnes of dead weight. takes time.prophetone
- should have started earlier? yes.prophetone
- you're clicking through though hopefully to their sites, so twitter isn't the solution.doesnotexist
- Continuity0
I'm frankly surprised a paper like The Guardian can stay in business with that much free content on their site. There's a gargantuan amount of it. If they wanted to charge me 10 €/month to access it, I'd consider it worth it.
- Continuity0
@_niko:
If you're not happy with The Star charging you money to access their content, go to the CBC, the BBC and the Guardian for Canadian and international news, and pick up whatever Toronto's free analogue to Halifax's The Coast is every week for local Toronto news.Problem sorted.
- Alternately, put your money where your mouth is and work on spec. Come back here in a month, and tell us again if newspapers don't have a right to charge for content online.Continuity
- ... newspapers don't have a right to charge for content online.Continuity
- exactly, I just don't get it, seems like a desperation move. I look at those sources and others daily, so i don't see_niko
- what would compel me to pay to access the star._niko
- and you can't compare the work of one man to a bloated under-performing corporation.
who's fat cats at the top make_niko - millions._niko
- I agree they should all be for profit, but figure out a way to make money that doesn't include subscriptions._niko
- Otherwise slim down or close._niko
- Continuity0
'i don't see what would compel me to pay to access the star.'
Maybe you don't, but others do. Like I said, if The Guardian charged for online subscriptions, I'd be happy to pay. Why? Well, for one, I agree with their editorial position. For another thing, there are articles about many, many, many things that interest me. Lastly, even though The Guardian isn't designated a newspaper of record, I've got enough faith in the quality of the reporting to consider it a very reliable news source.
I pay for a subscription to The Globe and Mail, though. Whilst I don't agree with its editorial position, most of the time, there's enough content I find interesting enough to pay money for.
The point is: many people probably feel the same about The Star as I do about The Guardian, and are happy to pay for their subscriptions. And why not? If they consider the paper to be of sufficient quality, that's all anyone needs to care about, and I absolutely believe journalists, editors, in-house photographers, designers and so on have a right to earn a decent living for their hard graft and, if subscription sales helps pay for that, then I'm all for papers charging.
It's not like you could pick up a paper copy for free anyway, is it?
- A paper copy is different, you want to help offset the cost of the material, but would you pay
for a paper that was surrounded_niko - surrounded by thousands of free papers all with the same stories?_niko
- Do you think running a digital newspaper has no staffing other costs?jacklalane
- A paper copy is different, you want to help offset the cost of the material, but would you pay
- colin_s0
niko -
i'd say to your first post, why in the world would anyone pay for design? agencies and designers and developers charge thousands of dollars for work you could get for free from some kid in college and a squarespace template. who actually would go out and pay for design?
- not the same thing. Please do pay all the creatives and journalists. They make money on ads. Only hire and keep on the amount of talent you can afford._niko
- the amount of talent you can afford._niko
- it's like saying we should all subscribe to internet explorer so that it can keep serving us content from talented creatives._niko
- they don't make the money they need from just ads anymore, hence the paywallsprophetone
- what's funny is your arguments are no longer valid. maybe 5-10 years ago but things have changed.prophetone
- the point is there's value there, it should be paid forprophetone
- jacklalane0
@_niko
First off I don't know where you are getting $19.99 It's $9.99!
Obviously you care to read the stories about the idiot mayor or you wouldn't be complaining.The Star does solid journalism and has reporters working on stories for months ex. Rob Ford Crack Video. They were responsible for identifying the Police officer who was eventually charged with beating Adam Nobody during the G20 when other papers did no investigative journalism.
If you are two cheap to pay for content you can read the Metro!
- exactly. you'll be up to speed on amanda bynes in no time...prophetone
- you're right, it was the globe and mail that is charging $19.99_niko
- should good news and opinion be accessible only by the rich? I don't have $10 or $20 to spend on news, i have kids to feed._niko
- should the poor only read about celebrity gossip? This is elitist no?_niko
- it's what's freeprophetone
- and by the way journalists have kids to feed as well. this is what i like to call an "economy".prophetone
- a good journalist doesn't need a newspaper these days. If he's good people will read and follow him from anywhere._niko
- newspapers are like music distribution companies in a way, and journalists like artists. Good artists get to the masses_niko
- without the need for giant record companies._niko
- colin_s0
reputable journalism is, at least in america, an incredibly important facet of democracy.
yes, newspapers need to adapt to the digital age. but part of their reputation is why whistleblowers or sources go to them. independent journalists would have a much more difficult time exposing corruption, identifying abuses of power, or even having the resources to do proper research and verify accurate reports.
creatives can do things on their own and a good journalist can create a great story - but that requires backing. being a freelance designer is a far cry from a journalist.
the newspaper industry allows journalists to follow stories across the world if need be, provide insurance and legal support, as well as another level of trust for those who may be nervous about coming clean in regards to, say, trusted NSA programs. journalists go up against governments, creatives just make pictures.
news is and always will be the most important aspect of a free society. information is just propaganda without democratic support. it's not like the record industry just vying for profits - it's making sure we all can make trusted, informed decisions in regards to our lives and the world around us.