Media spar over charging for news online

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Gatekeeper, Mar 14, 2010.

  1. Gatekeeper
    Offline

    Gatekeeper Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,004
    Thanks Received:
    350
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Ratings:
    +350
    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.


    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?
     
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    What he doesn't understand is someone must think your product worth paying for. WSJ is, NYT is not. Simple really.
     
  3. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,576
    Thanks Received:
    8,171
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,220
    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.
     
  4. Gatekeeper
    Offline

    Gatekeeper Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,004
    Thanks Received:
    350
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Ratings:
    +350
    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'.
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    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.
     
  6. Gatekeeper
    Offline

    Gatekeeper Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,004
    Thanks Received:
    350
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Ratings:
    +350
    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.
     
  7. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    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.
     
  8. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    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

    :lol:
     
  9. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    your ignorance would increase?

    there should be a law against that.
     
  10. Xenophon
    Offline

    Xenophon Gone and forgotten

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,705
    Thanks Received:
    3,750
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    In your head
    Ratings:
    +3,751
    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.
     

Share This Page