Media spar over charging for news online

[Gatekeeper]

They are at it again, digging up any excuse for getting into our wallets.
When and if all news is only procured through a PAID subscription, they can stick the subscriptions where the sun does not and may never shine.

New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger said the time is right for his newspaper to start charging for its website and the move will provide a "critical" new revenue stream to add to print and online advertising revenue.

Media heavyweights spar over charging for news online

If this ever comes to pass, I will do like with the 'newsPAPER' and cancel it forever.
Can they imagine more ways to achieve a higher revenue stream? YES, which could mean if we post a link in USMB the other readers would HAVE to have a paid account in order to read it, just for starters. And of course even with the PAID subscription follow the Ads.

Paying for 'content' in this manner opens up a Pandoras box of offshoots, any other ideas out there?

 

[Annie]

What he doesn't understand is someone must think your product worth paying for. WSJ is, NYT is not. Simple really.

 

[Avatar4321]

How evil! Someone wanting to get paid for their work!

Charge if you want. I am not planning to buy, but you have a right to expect some sort of compensation for your effort.

 

[Gatekeeper]

How evil! Someone wanting to get paid for their work!

Charge if you want. I am not planning to buy, but you have a right to expect some sort of compensation for your effort.

No one is saying, it's evil, or that it's NOT a right to charge for your work. It would be nice to go one step further, IF,the honest media owners want compensation for POSTING someone elses stories on the internet, (the reporters) are they then going to pay a royalty for each story, in addition to the yearly compensation, to those reporters who worked hard to acquire and arrange the stories? And of course to the Editor who may do a short rewrite before posting.
What's 'fair' is 'fair'.

 

[Annie]

How evil! Someone wanting to get paid for their work!

Charge if you want. I am not planning to buy, but you have a right to expect some sort of compensation for your effort.

No one is saying, it's evil, or that it's NOT a right to charge for your work. It would be nice to go one step further, IF,the honest media owners want compensation for POSTING someone elses stories on the internet, (the reporters) are they then going to pay a royalty for each story, in addition to the yearly compensation, to those reporters who worked hard to acquire and arrange the stories? And of course to the Editor who may do a short rewrite before posting.
What's 'fair' is 'fair'.

Actually, seems the reporters need to broker their own deals regarding payment.

I liked free internet news, would I pay for NYT? No. I am thinking of subscribing once again to WSJ. So much was free, that I dropped my subscription a few years ago. Now so much are behind subscription walls, I'm thinking of it.

There are very few news outlets I'd paid for. In the past 5 years I've dropped long held subscriptions to Time, Newsweek, WSJ, Chicago Tribune.

 

[Gatekeeper]

How evil! Someone wanting to get paid for their work!

Charge if you want. I am not planning to buy, but you have a right to expect some sort of compensation for your effort.

No one is saying, it's evil, or that it's NOT a right to charge for your work. It would be nice to go one step further, IF,the honest media owners want compensation for POSTING someone elses stories on the internet, (the reporters) are they then going to pay a royalty for each story, in addition to the yearly compensation, to those reporters who worked hard to acquire and arrange the stories? And of course to the Editor who may do a short rewrite before posting.
What's 'fair' is 'fair'.

Actually, seems the reporters need to broker their own deals regarding payment.

I liked free internet news, would I pay for NYT? No. I am thinking of subscribing once again to WSJ. So much was free, that I dropped my subscription a few years ago. Now so much are behind subscription walls, I'm thinking of it.

There are very few news outlets I'd paid for. In the past 5 years I've dropped long held subscriptions to Time, Newsweek, WSJ, Chicago Tribune.

Exactly, a BROKER for the reporters, their talent for writing should also be compensated by not only a salary but royalties, (residuals), no different than ads, movies or records.
Those like Murdoch may shoot themselves in the foot along with pricing themselves out of the market, since god forbid THEY take less profit.

 

[Annie]

No one is saying, it's evil, or that it's NOT a right to charge for your work. It would be nice to go one step further, IF,the honest media owners want compensation for POSTING someone elses stories on the internet, (the reporters) are they then going to pay a royalty for each story, in addition to the yearly compensation, to those reporters who worked hard to acquire and arrange the stories? And of course to the Editor who may do a short rewrite before posting.
What's 'fair' is 'fair'.

Actually, seems the reporters need to broker their own deals regarding payment.

I liked free internet news, would I pay for NYT? No. I am thinking of subscribing once again to WSJ. So much was free, that I dropped my subscription a few years ago. Now so much are behind subscription walls, I'm thinking of it.

There are very few news outlets I'd paid for. In the past 5 years I've dropped long held subscriptions to Time, Newsweek, WSJ, Chicago Tribune.

Exactly, a BROKER for the reporters, their talent for writing should also be compensated by not only a salary but royalties, (residuals), no different than ads, movies or records.
Those like Murdoch may shoot themselves in the foot along with pricing themselves out of the market, since god forbid THEY take less profit.

If they can get their owners to pay royalties, more power to them. My guess, it will be no, as right now with the exceptions of USA Today and WSJ, can't think of any big print media in the black.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How evil! Someone wanting to get paid for their work!

Charge if you want. I am not planning to buy, but you have a right to expect some sort of compensation for your effort.

No one is saying, it's evil, or that it's NOT a right to charge for your work. It would be nice to go one step further, IF,the honest media owners want compensation for POSTING someone elses stories on the internet, (the reporters) are they then going to pay a royalty for each story, in addition to the yearly compensation, to those reporters who worked hard to acquire and arrange the stories? And of course to the Editor who may do a short rewrite before posting.
What's 'fair' is 'fair'.

Actually, seems the reporters need to broker their own deals regarding payment.

I liked free internet news, would I pay for NYT? No. I am thinking of subscribing once again to WSJ. So much was free, that I dropped my subscription a few years ago. Now so much are behind subscription walls, I'm thinking of it.

There are very few news outlets I'd paid for. In the past 5 years I've dropped long held subscriptions to Time, Newsweek, WSJ, Chicago Tribune.

Funny thing. I think most conservatives I know would agree with me...we'd pay (most do now)for the NYT and the WSJ. One for financial news, the other for news content.

you wingnuts are soooooo stupid

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

They are at it again, digging up any excuse for getting into our wallets.
When and if all news is only procured through a PAID subscription, they can stick the subscriptions where the sun does not and may never shine.

your ignorance would increase?

there should be a law against that.

 

[Xenophon]

So, they want to charge for content?

Go ahead, nobody is reading it anyway, teh Times stopped being the paper of record some years ago.