Skip to content

Paying for an Online Newspaper

April 9, 2012

I finally caved and bought a New York Times digital subscription.

Remember the furor when the Times went to a subscription model for its website about a year ago?  No newspaper had ever successfully restricted their online content like this, because people wanted it free.  Living on a grad student stipend, I didn’t want to pay for it either, so I limped along on my 20 free articles a month.  Now the Times has announced that they’re reducing the monthly free articles from 20 to 10, and you know what?  I want that news.  The New York Times has some of the best news on the Internet, and I’m willing to pay for their world-class editorial board and analysis.

Which brings me to a couple of hypotheses.  First, that the Internet is getting more mature and people are figuring out how to make a business out of it.  Second, that people are willing to pay for the really good content online.

It’ll be interesting to see how decreasing the free articles to 10 plays out for the Times.

Advertisements
106 Comments leave one →
  1. April 13, 2012 10:54 AM

    I am always for the maturation of the Internet and people being willing to pay for good content online. Stealing (illegal downloads) was way too out of hand. It’s about time that changed.

    • April 22, 2012 10:14 AM

      Well the internet used to be a free space, so online content only has any worth now because people are choosing to privatize it.

  2. anonymousbeautyeditor permalink
    April 13, 2012 10:58 AM

    Good point. I’m this close to getting an online subscription too. But they should get rid of their app, which restricts me from reading their style sections, so i just read them using safari.

  3. April 13, 2012 11:10 AM

    If we want high quality journalism to remain online we might just have to get used to paying for it, in fact if we want newspapers to survive at all…

    • April 13, 2012 9:11 PM

      As someone who works at a newspaper that will likely switch to paid online content by the end of the year, I can only hope that this view is echoed by others out there in the community as well.

  4. April 13, 2012 11:14 AM

    It could go two ways: good for the paper or bad for the paper. that’s about all you need to know. wanna make a bet? LOL.

  5. April 13, 2012 11:25 AM

    congratulations on the fp! i have to admit, i’m so annoyed that i have to pay for them that i’ve switched to reading the huffpost on my smartphone. i’m with you… the nyt is exceptional content and they are probably right in rolling the dice and charging for subscriptions. but, i hate, HATE that their fees are monthly. when you add ‘this america life’ from npr (also great content) it’s like a $2.00 fee and you get it forever. the monthly cost bums me out. i haven’t bitten the bullet yet, but i’m afraid i may soon. – sweet mother

  6. April 13, 2012 11:28 AM

    I work for a newspaper, and bristled when it was brought up that we might put up a paywall in the near future. I thought for sure it would jeopardize my job. But the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. I mean, more and more people are turning to the web for their news content. Local newspapers are suffering because subscriptions are down. And subscriptions are down because you can get the same news for free online. But there is value to that news. A company like the NY Times should have a paywall, because they do produce quality news. And local newspapers should also charge because they tell the stories close to home.

    • April 14, 2012 4:28 AM

      I agree. The trick is that someone has to do it first. You can’t be the only paper in town charging to read online. But if it starts at the top (relatively speaking) with the NYT, then maybe it’ll trickle down.
      That said, I write for a newspaper that’s thrown in people’s yards every Thursday for free.

  7. April 13, 2012 11:34 AM

    I agree that the Times is great content. I am also waiting to see if only 10 free articles will be doable for me.

    Congrats on the fp!

  8. mplsgossipgirl permalink
    April 13, 2012 11:42 AM

    It Still makes me a pit peeved.

    Kind of like I am still a bit peeved at Netflix.

  9. Jonathan Hontz permalink
    April 13, 2012 12:01 PM

    You should check to see if your library carries the Times. You’ll get all the articles for free and (usually) a quiet place to read them in. I know the online version is convenient and perhaps more timely, but that money could probably be better spent elsewhere. Besides, if you head to the library, you can probably also find a copy of the New Yorker to read. 😉

    • April 15, 2012 6:24 PM

      I would add that, if you are a graduate student, you probably actually already have free online access to NYT content through your school. Lexis Nexis contains databases of NYT articles and NYT blogs that are updated daily. You don’t get the snappy cartoons and NYT Web site formatting, but it does have full-text.

  10. susangreeneye permalink
    April 13, 2012 12:02 PM

    The New York Times is worth it and I think, if we don’t pay, sooner or later there will be no more NYTimes.

  11. April 13, 2012 12:10 PM

    While I can appreciate your situation as a grad student, as a freelance journalist I see news paywalls as a good thing. There have been good things about free internet news, and even about “citizen journalism.” Many stories have been covered and movements sparked that wouldn’t have been possible otherwise.

    But free internet news can’t ever take the place of news gathered, researched, written, edited, and published by people who have made it their life’s work. In order for people to do that, they have to be paid enough to live. For that to happen, news organizations need to make money. If that happens through advertising revenues alone, the content becomes dictated by commercial interests. That’s always been a problem, but at least a paid subscriber base provides some checks and balances. There is still editorial bias, but maybe that can only be addressed by teaching media literacy starting at show-and-tell age.

    That said, I think it’s been necessary for the world to experience what happens when the business of news gathering is treated with increasing disregard; for the media to experience what happens when the reading public get frustrated with journalists who take their role in a democracy for granted; and for people to experience how hard it is to get an important story heard when the bar to becoming a journalist is knowing what QWERTY means.

    I think your metaphor of maturity is absolutely right, and I think all of that has been part of the maturation process, but I don’t think it’s just about the internet. I’ve long thought humanity is basically a child, and that child is just hitting puberty. I don’t think we’re through that yet; in fact, I think that much of humanity is still crawling around on the floor and throwing tantrums when things don’t go their way. But at least in some corners of the world, there seems to be a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel of adolescence, although it’s likely still a very long way off.

    • Ronald Rodriguez permalink
      April 13, 2012 1:58 PM

      You present some very good points! And are legitimate! These ideas are what we need to do to raise the standards of today’s journalism across all forms of outlets.

  12. April 13, 2012 12:37 PM

    For me, it means that I won’t browse their online content; instead, I rely on an aggregator to point me to articles. A subscription entails paying for editorial perspective, not random news.

    • April 13, 2012 1:43 PM

      No, a subscription entails paying for the people who actually go out and FIND and REPORT the news that an aggregator aggregates.

      Reporters can’t work for free, and citizen journalists, no matter how dedicated, can’t cover every city council meeting, legislative session, courtroom hearing, catastrophic fire, or other event. And those events, whether you’re interested in them or not, have immense potential to affect just about every aspect of your life.

      If you want to expose corruption, you’re going to have to comb through a lot of documents — court records, faxes, meeting minutes, maps, scientific reports, medical records and so many other things. Then you need the computer skills to analyze the results of those documents. And the writing skills to explain them clearly.

      News is NOT random. It doesn’t just fall out of the sky and land in an aggregator’s lap. If the Times and other newspapers are not around to gather it, who do you think will?

      • April 13, 2012 10:58 PM

        I know the economics of journalism, and I do subscribe to other publications. There is no such thing as a “citizen journalist”–there are citizens with blogs, and there are journalists. However, the main contribution of the NYT front page is random bits of news. What most people outside of New York pay for is their editorial bent.

      • April 14, 2012 12:31 AM

        To be perfectly fair to the NYT, the significance of their editorial perspective extends beyond politics, since for many people in the arts and in the business world, New York is the center of their moral universe. Also, the NYT science writing is probably the best available, week-by-week, for a general readership.

  13. April 13, 2012 12:57 PM

    Yep, I pay for “The Old Gray Lady” and enjoy reading each morning on da iPad.

    Nice Post

  14. April 13, 2012 1:04 PM

    I also think that this could either go well or horribly for the New York Times. For one thing, it’s a highly credible and established news source, and it’s more likely that people will be willing to pay for the journalism that goes into the publication. On the other hand, it’s getting to a time where the internet is generally freely-produced content, and you can get a myriad of different opinions from people, and even well-researched and thought out opinions as well. I’ve never been a big reader of NYT, so I doubt I’ll be paying for a subscription anytime soon.

  15. April 13, 2012 1:28 PM

    I have had a subscription to The Times in the UK now for about a year. I agree if you want the quality of journalism to continue or even improve then the papers have to have a revenue stream just like we all have some means of income.

    Papers have been struggling for a while now with advertising income over the last couple of years decreasing they are looking to other avenues to generate income. The Guardian (UK) announced some time ago about leaving the printed media for online content only.

    The way we consume news has changed drastically over the years; however newspapers have slow to adopt to these changes of consumer consumption. For some newspapers the slowness of their ability to change and adapt to consumer changes may very well be the nail in the coffin for them.

  16. April 13, 2012 1:46 PM

    I will believe that the Internet had became mature when people start paying to read my blog 🙂

  17. April 13, 2012 1:49 PM

    I think that’s a good example for the fact that you can earn money on the internet, if you deliver worthy content.

  18. April 13, 2012 2:40 PM

    I agree with you, it’s totally worth paying for! Heck, if it saves trees why not? As long as we’re all happy and satisfied right? 🙂

    Katie
    http://katieraspberry.wordpress.com/

  19. jake permalink
    April 13, 2012 3:25 PM

    For those who are harping about pirates who steal content: I’m a pirate, but I pay for things that are worth paying for. Also, our impact on company bottom lines is really really really tiny.

    We’re a proletariat cultural economic filter. If its crap (like the movie Wrath of the Titans), I’ll steal it but won’t pay. The actors’s salaries were more than I’ll make in decades anyway.

    If it’s awesome (like getting free full access to the NYT using that cookie trick) I’ll quit stealing and pay the subscription fee, which is what I do now.

    You’d be surprised by how many of us follow this model. And we make people rich.
    The best example would be Louis C. K’s approach here: https://buy.louisck.net/

    Pirates spreading a stolen version of his standup are one of the main reasons he made 1 million in less than 2 weeks. We watched for free, then paid after appreciating his work and his ‘revolutionary’ distribution methods.

    I know it’s not fair, but that’s how the internet works, and how the real world should work.

    If your product is crap, it dies. If it’s awesome, it gets the recognition it deserves.

  20. April 13, 2012 4:17 PM

    What you’re really paying for with the NYT is the writing style more so than the reporting. Nowadays, it’s not like only one source is going to have the information–but sources distinguish themselves with quality writing.

    I won’t pay, but that’s because I think they should have used a different business model.

  21. April 13, 2012 5:12 PM

    LA TImes just started doing this too, I was so surprised when I was told that I’d hit my limit. I look for my news elsewhere or at work where every time I connect to internet, I’m a new person according to the system. I know, my explanation screams how inept with internet I am.

  22. scintillatebrightly permalink
    April 13, 2012 5:57 PM

    I prefer the BBC news, and that’s all free.

  23. April 13, 2012 6:54 PM

    nice. i’d be interested too. yeah, free news is great, but if its something worth paying for, im definitely up for it. this seems to be like one of those

  24. April 13, 2012 7:13 PM

    Reblogged this on Moshe Njema.

  25. April 13, 2012 8:21 PM

    I was peeved when I saw that I can only read 10 a month now. But I haven’t bitten the bullet yet. Although I just might.

  26. April 13, 2012 9:33 PM

    Other fantastic ways to get your news for free in your iDevice is
    using Pulse or Flipboard app. Both have simple UI and you can easily read news, articles, view pictures etc with some cool animations.

  27. th3btiam permalink
    April 13, 2012 11:28 PM

    I caved about 6 months ago, and I am fine with the choice. The only thing I don’t like is paying extra for the crossword.

  28. popcultmag1 permalink
    April 14, 2012 2:17 AM

    Interesting piece and interesting comments. It would be nice if quality news was free so rich and poor alike can be equally informed. It would be a pity if knowledge belonged exclusively to those who can afford it. Thankfully I do not see that happening.

    • Warriors and Goddesses permalink
      April 14, 2012 8:02 AM

      Word!!

  29. April 14, 2012 2:39 AM

    The problem with this is that there are so many people that will repost their articles, you don’t need to pay for it. True someone is going to have to pay for it, but if no one paid for it, then they would find another business model. Look at all the citizen journalists and bloggers that make money by offering free content, and generally its more relevant.

  30. April 14, 2012 4:19 AM

    I work in print newspapers – and started before the beginning of the Internet. The Internet has this Napster attitude of “I don’t have to pay for anything because it’s the Internet.”
    Switch over to Guru.com, where employers pay $1 for 300 word articles. How much work would you do for a dollar? How good is that article going to be?
    My hope is that people will realize the difference between quality work for a price and crap for free.

    • April 14, 2012 6:41 AM

      what about all the ads on newspaper sites? most (if not all) of those ads are billed per impression, which ads up quickly. Also, most newspapers are crappy – if you work for a newspaper, you know this better than most people. however, I would be willing to pay for nytimes.com online because it’s the best newspaper i’ve ever read – the problem is, there is a giant hole in their paywall. I’m sure they know it’s there, they just don’t fix it because they are half hearted about their new model – probably because of the intense number of ads they post all over their site.

      • April 19, 2012 11:17 AM

        I have a YouTube channel with ads where I get paid per impression. After almost a year and more than 130,000 views, I have made $30 off ad revenue.

      • April 19, 2012 5:42 PM

        yeah, but you can’t compare a user’s YouTube ad revenue to that of a newspaper website – it’s not apples and oranges, but maybe… i don’t know, oranges and basketballs.

  31. April 14, 2012 6:03 AM

    You are so right! People will pay for good quality content – mind you, I have came across some blogs on here with remarkable perspectives, and detailed analysis. I think that people will pay for the news though – that seems to be (completely) future proof.

    Thanks for your post 🙂

  32. April 14, 2012 6:36 AM

    You don’t actually have to pay for the NYTimes.com – there is a GIGANTIC hole in their system. You see, they limit you to 20 (now 10) articles by tracking your web browser’s cookies. so if you just delete your cookies every time you close your browser (which most browsers can be set to do automatically because this is a good thing to do for privacy and security reasons) and you’re all set.
    In firefox, go to options/options/privacy and check the box ‘i don’t want to be tracked’ and set the drop down to ‘do not remember history’ and you’re good to go.

  33. April 14, 2012 7:45 AM

    I personally have no problem with purchasing an on-line subscription to the NY Times or even the WSJ. Our local paper recently announced its plans to go to an on-line subscription model. If it were of the same caliber as the NYT, sure no problem. But lately all it has become is a rehash of AP articles with no substance.

  34. Warriors and Goddesses permalink
    April 14, 2012 8:00 AM

    Pay for “good quality” content? Please. The Herald Sun in Melbourne (Australia) has just started this bullshit. Anyone with a right mind would not pay for the horse shit that is classed at ‘real content’ that is in mainstream media. It was only a matter of time before printed “news” paper figures dropped (as they gradually increased the price) before they made the convenience of viewing the “news” on your notebook or iPad come at a cost. Journalism is a thing of the past because no one wants to speak the truth Any asshole (including me) can write a blog for FREE on the internet so why would I pay for some biased, money hungry persons opinion just because they have a degreee? Another mechanism for the the divide between rich and poor continue to grow.

    • April 14, 2012 8:20 AM

      Bloggers can be biased too, you know…

      • Warriors and Goddesses permalink
        April 14, 2012 6:03 PM

        absolutely, I agree. But we don’t get paid to post so there are other motivators, not money.

  35. April 14, 2012 8:17 AM

    Nice post Margaret. Short and sweet. I think it will really be interesting to see how far digital media will progress in the near future. I think people are going to have serious issues about paying for stuff that used to be free. Only time will tell.

    Congrats on being Freshly Pressed!

  36. April 14, 2012 8:59 AM

    I’m a struggling college student here, who gets the Times for free at school, and also has access to so many computers, phones, and apple products that I could probably read every article for free. It does kind of suck to have to pay for something I can’t actually hold eg: itunes songs, but the world is progressing and writers still need to make money.

  37. April 14, 2012 9:06 AM

    For me, if it’s not on an IPhone then I generally don’t carry it around. Movies, books, radio, facebook, wordpress and yes, newspapers. The problem is this: I still like to buy a paper every now and again. Will they still be available in 5 years if people do as I do?

  38. pobrian permalink
    April 14, 2012 9:59 AM

    I opted to subscribe about a year ago. The content is much better than our local paper and I’m from NY State originally so I relate to many of the more locally slanted articles besides. At $240 a year I think it’s worthwhile. I can understand someone not want that commitment though. Nice post.

  39. pobrian permalink
    April 14, 2012 10:02 AM

    Reblogged this on Simple! and commented:
    Margaret Taylor hits a nerve in this post. What do you think about The New York Times and their subscription policies and cost. Personally I am a subscriber.

  40. April 14, 2012 10:58 AM

    Try the BBC–always free always fab–www.BBC.co.uk

  41. April 14, 2012 11:58 AM

    I don’t have the budget to pay for it so it’s annoying – espeically being a student and often relying on NYT for articles for papers. I can understand their reasons, but it’s still frustrating since NYT used to be one of my main sources.

    As a political science student we’re encouraged to keep up with the news and the new system has forced me into making a decision between using it for research and using it to keep current with the news. Usually I just go to other sources (The Guardian, BBC, Al Jazeera English, etc) for keeping up with the news and use NYT as little as possible for research purposes.

    Anyways, congratulations on being Freshly Pressed.

    – Kali

  42. April 14, 2012 12:02 PM

    As a journalism graduate, I hope this becomes more common. Print newspapers are dying, especially local ones, as many people are getting their content online but that doesn’t mean online content is better quality. In fact it is one of the factors leading to “churnalism” ( http://meganchapple.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/journalism-vs-churnalism/ ). If you want to read good quality news stories you should pay for them. This will mean quality journalism doesn’t disappear but evolves into the digital age.

  43. April 14, 2012 1:35 PM

    I’m not, unfortunately for the Times. When I was in NYC, I did faithfully read it at the library. Honestly, both time and $$ are short and free generally gains the upper hand in choices that like that. NPR is a lifesaver, when I can get decent reception, as I can do other things while getting a bit of news and culture. NPR is in my charitable donation rotation, but unfortunately not every year. They’ve been doing the “internet” thing of pay for great content after you assess it for decades.

    Now that I’m out of the city, I don’t even manage to read the weekly print local paper my household subscribes to. Where has the time gone? I will miss some features though– the health and science section (especially Jane Brody) are really very solid. Not worth $15/month though.

  44. April 14, 2012 3:36 PM

    I 100% agree.

  45. April 14, 2012 8:28 PM

    My husband and I are canceling our cable when we move in a few months. There’s much more content online than there is on tv, in our opinion.

    Donation-Can.com

  46. April 14, 2012 8:54 PM

    As the child of a PR person/magazine editor, who often wrote or ghost wrote pieces for the local papers in suburban Philly, newspapers and magazines were a huge part of my youth. I hope they stay healthy in whatever form. Not only can I now subscribe to my favorites on my Kindle, but my new printer can receive and print out subscriptions n its own s well! Congratulations on being Freshly Pressed!

  47. April 14, 2012 10:06 PM

    So you are paying for it now, are you happy with it? Would you say it’s definitely worth it to anyone who craves a high-quality news source? I like their business model, for sure. Good post, mate.

  48. John Saddington permalink
    April 15, 2012 7:36 AM

    Reblogged this on 8BIT.

  49. April 15, 2012 10:55 AM

    Wasn’t this concept part of the genius of Steve Jobs? Think iTunes. Think Apps.

  50. April 15, 2012 11:21 AM

    Hha.. Congrats on your decision on the subscription! Hope you enjoy it. I will stick on with the free hard copy of NYT on the campus! 🙂

  51. April 15, 2012 1:00 PM

    I’ve been considering paying for a NYT subscription too. I’ve been reading NYT online since my early teens and can’t seem to cut the habit. With the student discount, an online subscription is dirt cheap. On the other hand, I could get other papers – ones that are more local (I’m Canadian) for free. But I am awfully fond of the New York Times – especially the magazine. It’s probably the only paper I’d pay to read online.

  52. April 15, 2012 1:24 PM

    I started paying for NYT a few months ago when my free year of digital access expired. No regrets. Good reporting requires good salaries and ad banners aren’t cutting it.

  53. April 15, 2012 1:30 PM

    Does anyone read the NYT anymore?

    😉

    Wayne

  54. jessiekanelos permalink
    April 15, 2012 1:58 PM

    The Times is completely worth it. It totally pays off having a reliable, consistent source of information to navigate the info overload!

    jessiekanelos.wordpress.com

  55. April 15, 2012 2:12 PM

    The Guardian? They are best buds with the NYTimes but are still free. Also have a much better web layout

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2012/jan/09/charging-for-content-financialtimes

  56. April 15, 2012 2:28 PM

    I´d add a third hypothesis – that people don´t have any other choice than paying if they want to continue reading this publication online. They may also feel that there is nothing similar to read.

  57. April 15, 2012 3:06 PM

    If you really like NY Times, I think it is worth to pay. For me, I am just satisfied with the bunch of free alternatives. In my opinion, they will suffer from this decision in the long term, because there really good alternatives out there for free and people will eventually switch to those.

  58. April 15, 2012 6:48 PM

    As a journalist struggling to come to terms with evolving media, I definitely think it’s the right idea to pay for content online. It’s the only way a viable business model will be formed, and if everyone follows the NYT perhaps journalism won’t be lost. That said, I’ve ironically refused to pay for content (my company’s papers are free) until I get a salary high enough for me to afford paying for content.

  59. April 15, 2012 6:49 PM

    Reblogged this on Carrie's Journalism Blog and commented:
    This is a great start for journalism companies everywhere. It’s a pretty risky move for the NYT, but they have the opportunity to be pioneers in the online business model process. And Lord knows they need it right now.

  60. April 15, 2012 11:18 PM

    Oh, you did not… but you did! I am laughing too. The people using the internet are becoming more “mature” cracked me up. I see so many unreal things each day on the internet but what refreshed me today was your blogging. I could not agree more. The NYT has made a stunningly wonderful gesture by cutting the cost in half. It is now time for us to step up to the plate and pay for the goodness we receive. Great blogging!

  61. April 16, 2012 1:08 AM

    The Australian, our NY Times downunder, have recently turned their online site into a paid-fo-service. It sux, big time. Glad they’ve reduced the cost, and you raise a very good question vis-a-vis student access to informed news articles. I feel my hackles curl.

  62. bellesogni permalink
    April 16, 2012 4:23 AM

    If I’m going to pay for content, then I don’t want to wait around forever for their advertisements to load.

  63. April 16, 2012 6:01 AM

    Well its still a hackers world and after watching big corporations like sony entertainment fall victum to hackers im sure it hasent made this easier for online businesses. The trust factor always comes into play and if people are believing in spending their money online again then thats awesome. New York Times made a good business move there since they didnt get greedy and rais their prices like netflx but im sure thats a lesson all in its own. ( It doenst pay to be greedy ) -,o

    http://wp.me/2aAA8

  64. Felicity Fox permalink
    April 16, 2012 6:17 AM

    Whilst I agreed that good online content and editorial should be paid for in principle and those who provide should be remunerated, this is not going to work for the New York Times as a model. People want their information to be quick, accessible and good quality but we are not at a point of paying for it. Perhaps this is why New York Times is now playing second fiddle to Daily Mail Online. http://www.felicityfox.net

  65. April 16, 2012 6:30 AM

    Part of the transition of a business.

  66. lgb permalink
    April 16, 2012 7:05 AM

    i won’t ever pay

  67. April 16, 2012 7:32 AM

    Marketing is the key to saving the new york times:-)

  68. April 16, 2012 7:39 AM

    It actually isnt such a bad idea, i’ve got a paid subscription myself and i’m pretty satisfied

  69. April 16, 2012 8:58 AM

    I think it’s great that the NY Times is monetizing their online paper, this way writers can keep getting paid for their work.

  70. plainbagel permalink
    April 16, 2012 9:58 AM

    I wonder if “news” was ever news except for weather and very factual stuff. Most “news” seems to be propaganda and spin. Why pay to hear their spin?

  71. April 16, 2012 10:15 AM

    Think that it is great that the New York Times are reducing the amount of freebies, but I am not sure that this is the solution, they will loose many readers

  72. April 16, 2012 8:08 PM

    Though the NY Times is not my paper of choice, I am considering paying for WSJ or the Minneapolis Star Tribune. I used to pay to have a crap local paper delivered to my doorstep. As I see it, the internet maturing as you put it, gave me more choice to decide what I want to subscribe to. I’ve known for years that the free online newspaper would disappear. So I am happy to have the choice to subscribe to whichever paper I choose. Plus there are still great free sources for news if you feel the need to supplement your subscriptions. Good post.

  73. April 17, 2012 1:56 PM

    Ne vše se dá koupit za peníze !!!

  74. eric permalink
    April 18, 2012 1:59 AM

    I fully agree that the contents of New York TImes are worth the money.

  75. April 18, 2012 11:08 AM

    While it would be nice if you were correct, I think you are taking your own personal maturation and applying it overly broadly to the internet at large. Anecdotal evidence is just that.

  76. April 19, 2012 5:22 AM

    Reblogged this on paintboxtalks.

  77. April 19, 2012 4:35 PM

    Good Point

  78. sanjayjssate permalink
    April 21, 2012 8:31 AM

    this looks wired paying for a information in it age
    ———————————————
    http://www.itonlinejob.com
    ————————————————

  79. April 21, 2012 8:49 AM

    Paying for an online newspaper….LOL. Yeah right!

  80. April 21, 2012 8:50 AM

    I can think of multiple occasions where I don’t read an article I was anticipating from the new york times just because I’m required to sign in

  81. jkmfsu permalink
    April 22, 2012 5:19 AM

    I couldn’t help but comment on this. When you have passed your 10 free articles, the URL which redirects you to the page telling you that you have, in fact, passed your 10 free articles, looks like this: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/world/middleeast/displacement-of-kurds-tests-iraqs-fragile-unity.html?hp&gwh=EA04E3535EDB0773AC9AAA48F72CB76B

    Delete the last part of the URL (usually it’s after .html, sometimes you just have to kind of guess): ?hp&gwh=EA04E3535EDB0773AC9AAA48F72CB76B

    Then press enter.

    Now you have the article.
    Happy reading.

  82. April 25, 2012 8:31 AM

    Living in the UK, The Times (the UK one) is pretty much the only paid for online news site, and I personally wouldn’t even consider signing up when there is so much free news out there – like the BBC News website.

Trackbacks

  1. Are you willing to pay for the news you read online? « Journalitico
  2. Modenhet | Gjermunds hjørne
  3. Paying for an Online Newspaper – Follow-Up « Steam Trains and Ghosts
  4. Paying for an O… | unarvunews

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: