Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Ask Slashdot: What Online News Is Worth Paying For?

Soulskill posted about 10 months ago | from the pennies-on-the-page dept.

The Media 361

schnell writes "The increasing prevalence of online news paywalls and 'nag walls' (e.g. you can only read so many articles per month) has forced me to divide those websites into two categories: those that offer content that is unique or good enough to pay for vs. those that don't. Examples of the former for me included The Economist and Foreign Policy, while other previous favorite sites The New York Times and even my hometown Seattle Times have lost my online readership entirely. I also have a secret third category — sites that don't currently pay/nag wall, but I would pay for if I had to — Ars Technica and Long Form come to mind. What news/aggregation sites are other Slashdotters out there willing to pay for, and why? What sites that don't charge today would you pay for if you had to? Or, knowing this crowd, are the majority just opposed to paying for any web news content on principle?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

50 cent (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160555)

I get most of my news from the state funded TV network's news section of their web site. The abount I pay for this in taxes comes down to approximately $ 0.5 per day.

Re:50 cent (4, Informative)

Chrisq (894406) | about 10 months ago | (#46160593)

I get most of my news from the state funded TV network's news section of their web site. The abount I pay for this in taxes comes down to approximately $ 0.5 per day.

Same here; BBC news and BBC website!

Where to obtain relevant news ? (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 10 months ago | (#46160603)

I get most of my news from the state funded TV network's news section of their web site

No doubt there *are* a lot of excellent news aggregator services available online but it's getting harder and harder to find relevant news, especially news articles written by knowledgeable reporters, and news articles that report the news as it is - without added "bonus" such as biases.

Re:Where to obtain relevant news ? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160681)

No doubt there *are* a lot of excellent news aggregator services available online but it's getting harder and harder to find relevant news, especially news articles written by knowledgeable reporters

Wrong answer.

Dice want to commercialise Slashdot and are asking you what you are prepered to pay them for it, not for real journalism.

So, a penny for your thoughts?

Re:Where to obtain relevant news ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160969)

Dice should shit in one hand and want money in the other hand, then, taking notes on multiple instances, discover which hand will fill up first.
Dice should pay ME for making them ad money without pause for all these years.
Pay for news! ROFLMAO! Perhaps I should take that money and pay a whore to lie to me. She will certainly have big tits I can fondle while I get the news /. has not yet implemented this feature, so testing the water with their hand out is ridiculous to begin with.
NO ONE is GONNA PAY for un-truth-tested propaganda, ads and outright lies, which is the body of news, dont forget shameless self promotion, governmental look a bird and withering promises of good things to come.
Once they get a handful, they should have a taste....

Re:Where to obtain relevant news ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46161123)

Once they get a handful, they should have a taste....

Here son... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]

Re:Where to obtain relevant news ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160819)

news.google.com
news.yahoo.com

You are not very good at searching.

Re:50 cent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160651)

I get most of my news from the state funded ...

Sounds like communism to me.
They tell you what to think too?

Re:50 cent (4, Funny)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 10 months ago | (#46160673)

Is that you, Rupert?

Re:50 cent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160905)

Not the ones on slashdot, for sure. The last couple o weeks I've been seeing so much biased and bad quality articles that I'm seriously considering leaving after more than 6 years reading slashdot.

Re:50 cent (5, Interesting)

flyneye (84093) | about 10 months ago | (#46160929)

I object to the implication that I am supposed to pay for all the bullshit and propaganda funnelled in through my senses, since I have to spend the time and memory to sort any sort of useful truth out of it, dont forget the ads. My time is worth money; far more money than any stinking newsclown I can think of. THEY SHOULD PAY ME to intake their particular brand. I want my money and I want it NOW!!!
Until then I will kick off my shoes, air my dirty socks and comment on whatever unpleasant thing crosses my mind, searching for kindred spirits.
Pay me, I will be more polite.

LWN (4, Informative)

BESTouff (531293) | about 10 months ago | (#46160559)

http://lwn.net/ [lwn.net] is the only news source I'm paying for.

Re:LWN (1)

GingerDog (907579) | about 10 months ago | (#46160713)

Ditto; and you've saved me from having to post as such :)

(Happy subscriber for the last 4+ years)

What news is worth paying for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160565)

Wikileaks.

Re:What news is worth paying for? (4, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | about 10 months ago | (#46160581)

Wikileaks.

Free to you but, Julian Assange is paying for it big time.

Re:What news is worth paying for? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160629)

Technically he's not because of Wikileaks, but because of rape suspicion.

Re:What news is worth paying for? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160745)

Yeah right...

slashdot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160579)

obviously

Re:slashdot (1)

fisted (2295862) | about 10 months ago | (#46160729)

Thanks for bringing that site to my attention. Looks interesting, will try.

Online Propaganda (4, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about 10 months ago | (#46160599)

Why should I pay for content that amounts to Propaganda, supporting increasingly corrupted civic institutions and companies, all against my own interest. And this is even more my eyeballs are the product being sold to advertisers.

Why should I pay one penny for a word of this?

Re:Online Propaganda (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160775)

Why should I pay for content that amounts to Propaganda, supporting increasingly corrupted civic institutions and companies, all against my own interest. And this is even more my eyeballs are the product being sold to advertisers.

Why should I pay one penny for a word of this?

Why should I pay one penny for even a single line of code? It all amounts to Propaganda, with vendors pushing out hundreds of new features, all against my own interest. All software should be given away for free, no matter what. After all, programmers can sustain themselves on sunshine and happy thoughts, apparently just like writers.

Re:Online Propaganda (1, Troll)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 10 months ago | (#46160965)

Quite true. Software should generally be Free. One of the benefits that we all gain from this is that, when software doesn't have to be locked up just to force people to pay for it, it can be distributed in source code form. And that helps prevent issues with embedded malware, and embedded exploitation of the users too.

Re:Online Propaganda (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46161025)

Good point, use Linux or a BSD variant.
Code, like news can be good, bad, corrupt, cause you problems if taken seriously, leave you high and dry even if you pay, cause system conflicts, carry malware and like the news is seldom to meet the image it projects. I personally havent paid for software since my first computer years ago. It wouldnt have been worth it for all the work Ive had to do in conjunction with it. If you wanted to make money, you wouldnt be writing software, playing drums, weaving baskets, oil painting, or saving bottle caps. Money is too valuable to waste on bullshit.

Re:Online Propaganda (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46161049)

You are comparing different things. Biased and wrong news is more like virus and rootkits. Why should you pay for them? Unless you want biased and wrong news or virus or rootkits, then you shouldn't.

Re:Online Propaganda (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46161195)

I would add, you read the /. comments and most with vast knowledge chime in over how the linked articles are inaccurate.

What I can't stand are arrogant journalists that act like because they've been covering certain subjects they put there own two shit comments into the article, or act like they've become a foremost expert on it. And today's younger journalist sound like these dinghy girls and guys, that used to hang out at the Mall during the early 90's.

Like wow, and I was like gross, and I said like oh my god.

Re:Online Propaganda (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46161215)

Why should I pay for content that amounts to Propaganda

Don't you think that's the point of the question? ie: what news sources are supporting themselves via subscription rather than propaganda-whoring? Which of those sources contain actual information without propaganda?

There's clearly a market for unbiased, insightful reporting. Maybe not a large market, and maybe not a market willing to pay a liveable wage to a good writer, but certainly a market. Who's serving that market?

Wikipedia (5, Insightful)

Camembert (2891457) | about 10 months ago | (#46160623)

It is not really a news site, but I would pay for wikipedia if paywalled. I did voluntary pay a bit, twice. It is in general very useful for me. Otherwise perhaps occasionaly for an in depth article by a repute dpublisher (even then, max. $2), but not a subscription.

Re:Wikipedia (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 10 months ago | (#46160975)

It is not really a news site, but I would pay for wikipedia if paywalled. I did voluntary pay a bit, twice. It is in general very useful for me.
Otherwise perhaps occasionaly for an in depth article by a repute dpublisher (even then, max. $2), but not a subscription.

I, too have coughed up cash for Wikipedia. I'd actually pay google, but if they billed me per-search, I'd go bankrupt quickly. Happily, they're selling me to all and sundry so I don't have to.

I'm inclined to the communistic approach to pay-for-content. Wikipedia got a lot more than $2 from me (more than once). But my ability to pay for stuff goes up and down with the economy and, if anything, my need for some of that same stuff goes up when the economy goes down. I figure it averages out.

Subscription models I generally don't buy into. As I said, when I need stuff most it may be when I can least afford it, and I don't have the patience to fight "retention consultants" to get off the financial hook.

Likewise I don't care for micro-transactions.

Re:Wikipedia (4, Insightful)

tylikcat (1578365) | about 10 months ago | (#46161087)

*blink* I just realized I didn't give wikipedia my annual donation. (Clicks over and fixes that.)

Thanks.

The kind that teaches (3, Interesting)

GeekWithAKnife (2717871) | about 10 months ago | (#46160633)


I for one will be happy to pay for in-depth, impartial analysis that takes complex matters and explains them to me simply.

There are enough people out there interested in different things, there's a market there, somewhere. Regardless of that I'm sure most people are sick and tired of tabloids, newspapers with a political agendas and media moguls pushing their views.

I'll pay if you empower me with no BS knowledge and thus a real chance of understanding. Ask me, the potential buyer what I care about, what I'd like to know about and what I do not care for.

Information should be free, instead of asking how you can charge for information maybe you should consider how to monetize transferring free information? wait a moment that's call an ISP. Tax the ISP? -do you see where this is going?

So far we've all been reading what we like for free on the internet, what will your pay service do better? can you demonstrate you're giving me, the reader better value over "free!"? -if you cannot answer that question you should not bother with a pay wall. If you tax at the ISP level and they transfer costs to the customers then customer will move.

So really, what information is not easily accessible to the masses, without passes and logins? high quality research, specialist and niche information. Essentially the sort that has a very low readership and cannot fund itself on ad revenues. Someone will pay for that.

Re:The kind that teaches (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 10 months ago | (#46161197)

I for one will be happy to pay for in-depth, impartial analysis that takes complex matters and explains them to me simply.

And without bias? When you find it, let me know. Tell everyone else, too. We've all been searching for that mythical city since time was time.

Paid by advertising (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160635)

I do not run an ad blocker, and I am fairly tolerant of adverts alongside my news. I will continue reading a site even if the entire sidebar is flashing animated gifs at me.

That is my payment.

I do block flash content, because ads with sound step over the line, and I will stop visiting a site that loads keyword ads in the text of an article, but almost anything else I consider to be a fair condition for free access to content.

Re:Paid by advertising (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 10 months ago | (#46160981)

I do not run an ad blocker, and I am fairly tolerant of adverts alongside my news. I will continue reading a site even if the entire sidebar is flashing animated gifs at me.

That is my payment.

I do block flash content, because ads with sound step over the line, and I will stop visiting a site that loads keyword ads in the text of an article, but almost anything else I consider to be a fair condition for free access to content.

Welcome to the club!

lizard-brain visual heroine (2, Insightful)

epine (68316) | about 10 months ago | (#46160985)

I do not run an ad blocker, and I am fairly tolerant of adverts alongside my news. I will continue reading a site even if the entire sidebar is flashing animated gifs at me.

That is my payment.

You haven't paid a nickel until your willingness to tolerate the advertising seeps into your psyche in such a way that causes you to behave differently in how you participate in the economy to the advantage of those who generated the advertisement stream.

Ads function on at least four levels. The first is to create direct demand. Suddenly you know something exists and you decide you want it. The second is to make rational people less rational. You already had a perfectly rational plan suited to your economic interests and life goals, but then something changes, so you end up paying more for less (some part of your brain believes those beer girls are hiding inside those beer cans filled with inferior beer). The third level is to cause you to crave those munchies you already have in the pantry. This is a direct boost to consumption level, of a product you already buy. This works extremely well for salty snack foods. It's hard to watch people eat salty snack food on TV all day long and not get a craving. The fourth level is to get people to buy into status glow. When your friend buys three times as much truck as he really needs, it takes a lot of his buddies oohing and awing in suitable hushed and gushing terms, to back-fill the 10 k$ hole in his wallet relative to a different purchase where he would have hardly noticed the downgrade on a daily basis—not even getting into what he could have lived without.

I happen to believe that the engine that really drives the free market is rational decision making. Advertising for the most part reduces the contribution of rational decision making to the free market, to where we end up with a power law (or a law of power): the wealthiest and smartest 20% of the economy (these are not uncorrelated) makes 80% of the rational decisions. The other 80% of the market makes 20% of the rational decisions, in between mouthfuls of Cheetos.

Wired ran a retrospective recently featuring famous commercials of recording artists selling their souls. Take a look at the Pepsi commercial circa 1980 with His Dancing Whiteness. The entire cast look like well nourished Kenyan distance runners. There's exactly one physique I would even describe as burly (you catch a glimpse of half of his back as he provides a backdrop of some guy unloading a candy van). Burly man is not drinking a Pepsi. All the skinny people are drinking Pepsi.

Thirty years later all those Pepsi customers are so fat they need double-wide remote controls just to sink into the couch after school because the mere thought of going outside to dribble a basketball would cause their overworked hearts to explode.

Is that a free market outcome? Really, you think so? What all these rational economic agents wanted deep down was to become fat, unhealthy, and unsexy? It's a good thing God had the foresight to allow humans to copulate in a mutually horizontal orientation.

Bad things come from bad markets. Look around at the outcomes of so many people who willingly welcome these toxic payment streams into their lives stuffed to the gills with lizard-brain visual heroine.

NYT for me, but paying somewhere is important (4, Interesting)

artor3 (1344997) | about 10 months ago | (#46160653)

The submitter may not think its worth it, but I've been happy with my online subscription. I like the periodic long form articles going in depth on topics that I often find interesting, the opinion articles where they actually invite several people with different view points to present their own argument (without just yelling at each other), and the general news coverage which usually doesn't get too caught up in the petty cable news fodder. (The "missing white girl of the week" stories.)

Plus I am absolutely addicted to their Numberplay feature.

But more important than any specific site, I think its important to pay for news. Research isn't free, and if we don't pay for it, who will? Remember -- who ever pays for it gets to decide what goes in. I don't want that to be the government, nor do I want it to be some rich "benefactor" with an agenda to push. Sure, we can get stuff like the Snowden leaks for free, but we need journalists like those at the Guardian to pore over the data and find the juicy bits. I don't trust random bloggers to do so, because the signal would get lost in the noise, and most of us don't have time to do it ourselves.

Re:NYT for me, but paying somewhere is important (2)

djmurdoch (306849) | about 10 months ago | (#46160923)

if we don't pay for it, who will?

Advertisers?

who ever pays for it gets to decide what goes in

You said you pay for the NYT. Do they let you determine what articles to include? Only to the extent that if they do a bad job, you won't renew your subscription. If advertisers were paying, the same would be true: they won't get eyeballs if they don't have content that attracts them.

Re:NYT for me, but paying somewhere is important (1)

argStyopa (232550) | about 10 months ago | (#46161165)

Apparently you're not reading enough news, if you think the NYT doesn't have an agenda to push.

If you don't notice it, you probably just agree with it.

pay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160663)

never

The Guardian (5, Insightful)

raketman11 (807813) | about 10 months ago | (#46160675)

The Guardian to give them financial support to keep real journalism going.

Re:The Guardian (5, Insightful)

dataxtream (1292440) | about 10 months ago | (#46161005)

Agreed. They are the only mainstream media to support Edward Snowden and are withstanding a fierce backlash from the UK government. If we cannot fight for our freedom then we should at least support those that do.

ask the unsuspecting innocent end user (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160697)

they should know http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=biased%20opinion%20news&sm=3

None (5, Insightful)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | about 10 months ago | (#46160703)

I find it hilarious that news corps expect me to pay them to access their sites, when all they do is sit on their asses copying/pasting shit from AP, Reuters, or Bloomberg (for financial news) like everyone else does. No wonder many news outlets (both online and in print) are tanking.

If they expect me to pay, I expect them to bring me some original, exclusive news coverage/articles that's not easily found elsewhere for free.

Re:None (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160777)

I find it hilarious that news corps expect me to pay them to access their sites, when all they do is sit on their asses copying/pasting shit from AP, Reuters, or Bloomberg (for financial news) like everyone else does. No wonder many news outlets (both online and in print) are tanking.

If they expect me to pay, I expect them to bring me some original, exclusive news coverage/articles that's not easily found elsewhere for free.

Amen.

Re:None (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160831)

That's why I love Fox News. They report things you won't see *anywhere* else. Because they just make shit up.

Re:None (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160863)

If they expect me to pay, I expect them to bring me some original, exclusive news coverage/articles that's not easily found elsewhere for free.

That. News are a commodity these days, I can obtain them anywhere.

But I am willing to pay for added value - unbiased, relevant selection of news, reviews and research in an easy to consume format. Flipboard app and Google News come close to my expectations but are not there yet.

Re:None (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 10 months ago | (#46160979)

I find it hilarious that news corps expect me to pay them to access their sites, when all they do is sit on their asses copying/pasting shit from AP, Reuters, or Bloomberg (for financial news) like everyone else does. No wonder many news outlets (both online and in print) are tanking. If they expect me to pay, I expect them to bring me some original, exclusive news coverage/articles that's not easily found elsewhere for free.

One of our big national newspapers here in Norway recently put up a nagwall at 8 articles/week, though not every article seems to be count but since there's no clear indication this has lead me to only read what I can't get at the other 3-4 sites that usually carry the same mix of news. Even when it's not copy-pasta "breaking events" tend to be exactly the same, the number of unique in-depth articles is very low. Between home and work and smartphone (unique IPs) 24/week is plenty.

Re:None (2)

Splab (574204) | about 10 months ago | (#46161061)

A couple of Danish newspapers are doing the same. Just install Ghost incognito addon for chrome, hit that ghost when you get tagged by a paywall, chrome will then automatically switch to incognito when you visit those sites, clears out most paywalls.

STOP beta.slashdot.org ALREADY! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160735)

JUST STOP THAT FUCKING THING.
NOW!
Or is nobody out there listening to what the users are saying??

Re:STOP beta.slashdot.org ALREADY! (4, Insightful)

rvw (755107) | about 10 months ago | (#46160765)

JUST STOP THAT FUCKING THING.
NOW!
Or is nobody out there listening to what the users are saying??

First thing I do is scroll down and click on the classic link. I don't mind if they move over to another platform, but please keep this layout! How difficult is it to offer both?

Re:STOP beta.slashdot.org ALREADY! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160877)

Use "http://slashdot.org/?nobeta=1" and you'll never have to see the beta again.

Re:STOP beta.slashdot.org ALREADY! (3, Insightful)

StripedCow (776465) | about 10 months ago | (#46160917)

Until they stop support for classic.

Re:STOP beta.slashdot.org ALREADY! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160781)

I personally love the new interface. Maybe it turns out that you're actually in a vocal minority.

Re:STOP beta.slashdot.org ALREADY! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160903)

Hell no. The only people who aren't pissed about Beta are the ones who haven't really seen it. I see a post in almost every thread about how Beta is horrible, but nobody has ever said they like it. Let's run it as a poll and see what comes up.

Kill it with fire, and censure the fool who designed the layout.

Re:STOP beta.slashdot.org ALREADY! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160983)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I haven't seen anything in beta that is "new" enough to make it worth it.

Stop it yourself (via hosts files) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160789)

Stop /. redirecting you to it @ least, by adding THIS to your hosts file:

216.34.181.45 slashdot.org
216.34.181.45 beta.slashdot.org
216.34.181.46 images.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 it.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 developers.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 yro.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 mobile.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 news.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 ask.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 tech.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 apple.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 books.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 games.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 hardware.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 interviews.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 linux.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 science.slashdot.org
216.34.181.48 idle.slashdot.org

* :)

THAT will block out their ability to redirect you to it whatsoever - especially the 2nd line item from the top BOLDED entry line above...

(You're welcome)

APK

P.S.=> To create a custom hosts file that does not only THAT (secures you vs. redirects @ the DNS or even site level), but also gives you more speed, security, reliablity, & even anonymity, use this (shameless plug, details of what custom hosts give you in FULL are listed here) -> http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

... apk

No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160747)

Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.

None (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160751)

I would never be willing to pay for news.

None. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160783)

All news media have their own agenda. Let them pay for it.

Sydney Morning Herald (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160785)

I currently pay for the Sydney Morning Herald; given it's the local paper - and they still do a lot of their own non-syndicated journalism with a tolerable level of bias.

What I do wish however, would be if the paying for one opened access to other international sources (perhaps via some kind of partnership between multiple sources). I don't want to be dumping $100/month down to get access to the 5-6 sites I'd like to read - it'd be nice to spend $20/month and get a bundled selection of decent sources.

At the heart of it, I have no problem paying for access - in theory, the more direct revenue; the less they need to pander to advertisers with silly buzz-feed style content; and I appreciate long-form journalism and essays which direct payment should theoretically support more of.

Re:Sydney Morning Herald (1)

HJED (1304957) | about 10 months ago | (#46160807)

You know the Sydney Morning Herald uses cookies right? If you open in it private browsing or clear cookies the 30 articles/month limit resets itself.

Re:Sydney Morning Herald (1)

QA (146189) | about 10 months ago | (#46160827)

Even simpler to use Chrome and open up an incognito tab.

Re: Sydney Morning Herald (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160949)

Try the brisbanetimes.com.au same content no nag wall

Unbiased (1)

Racerdude (1006357) | about 10 months ago | (#46160797)

I would pay for a news source with no economic or political agenda... You know. an unbiased news site.

secret, noun (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160803)

something that is known about by only a few people and not told to others

Not slashdot for sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160811)

The quality of the articles posted here has dropped so much that we should be paid to read the trashy summaries

BBC (5, Informative)

Hypotensive (2836435) | about 10 months ago | (#46160817)

In the UK we already pay for the BBC through taxes. So we might as well use it.

Re:BBC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160855)

The BBC is such trash. It's like the Daily Mail for the upper class.

Also, you can still use the BBC website even if you don't pay taxes, how do you think foreigners view it?

Re:BBC (1)

psmears (629712) | about 10 months ago | (#46160963)

Also, you can still use the BBC website even if you don't pay taxes,

True - the licence fee (it's not strictly a tax) is only paid if you use a TV or watch live streaming.

how do you think foreigners view it?

When you're viewing the BBC News website from outside the UK, it shows adverts (and different content).

Re:BBC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46161027)

Someone needs to tell the goons the BBC employs to collect the licence fee that you only need to pay if you use a TV. Their working assumption is that everybody in the country watches live TV and so everybody must pay. If you don't have a TV you have to endure endless harassment, legal threats and threatening behaviour from their employees on your doorstep. Once you manage to persuade them you really don't have a TV, they leave you alone for a couple of months, then they start the cycle of harassment again.

If they want to collect it from everyone in the country then they should just call it a tax and be done.

Re:BBC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46161057)

Actually, you don't have to pay if you own a TV but only use it for DVDs and video games.

Though you do need to tell them this so they can assess you. (It's on their [the TV licensing] website.)

Re:BBC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46161189)

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/what-if-a-tv-licence-is-not-needed-top12/

"If you don’t watch or record television programmes as they are being shown on TV, on any device, you don’t need a TV Licence."

"You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch ‘catch up’ services like BBC iPlayer or 4oD."

You are spreading misinformation. I have no license yet have a TV on which I watch downloaded and streamed content (ie. netflix, iplayer). The BBC have not harassed me or sent me any letters since I initially cancelled my license about a year ago.

Re:BBC (1)

Immerial (1093103) | about 10 months ago | (#46161063)

As a foreigner I view it as an outsider's view of the US news... which I value greatly. With Fox News making stuff up (man, they've got their tin foil hats on tight) and 20/20 doing NSA fluff pieces, it's hard to get anything real from inside the US. Now I know BBC news has it's own tilt, it's just no where near as bad as news from inside the US. Sadly I find myself sometimes agreeing with the "WTF is with Americans?" sentiment of some of the articles.

Re:BBC (1)

tylikcat (1578365) | about 10 months ago | (#46161117)

NPR (which I support) and the BBC were my primary net radio sources (and I listen to a lot of radio news) but the quality of the BBC reporting has dropped of, and gotten more conservative, pretty notably in just the last several months.

New York Review of Books (1)

lurker412 (706164) | about 10 months ago | (#46160835)

While it's not a news site, among other things it provides thoughtful analysis of current affairs and cultural trends. Some of it is available for free, but subscribing gives you access to all content, current and past. It's not light reading, but Vishnu knows we have more than enough of that the Web.

Exactly one (1)

vikingpower (768921) | about 10 months ago | (#46160839)

A bunch of reporters in my home country decided to create a no-ad publishing site, where they publish their own in-depth investigation articles. They need € 60 / yr / reader to stay afloat. I happily donate to these aficionados of free speech. By wiring the money in from my bank account. I refuse to use credit cards on the internet, and refuse to pay for any pay-walled site. The free offers are vast and diverse enough.

CBC (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160847)

The Canadian version of BBC. Still independent of corporation control because it has signifigant tax payer funding and support. Politicians find it hard to muzzle CBC because tax payers can get very pissed off when CBC gets pushed around by politicians. Not enough money for lots of international news but still can be a good site for some interantional news.

None.At.All (1)

some old guy (674482) | about 10 months ago | (#46160869)

Radio, streamed or OTA, like the BBC World Service and NPR, are all I need for breaking news. For depth, when wanted, I'll research it myself.

I'm not even remotely interested in the crappola that passes for main-stream media these days.

Slashdot! (4, Interesting)

herve_masson (104332) | about 10 months ago | (#46160875)

I would pay for a slashdot version with >80% of articles about technology :)

Why the Paywall Hate? (3, Insightful)

jellie (949898) | about 10 months ago | (#46160881)

I pay for the NYT, Ars, and The Economist, although the last 2 really aren't newspapers. Why does everyone here hate "paywalls"? Running a newsroom is extremely expensive. From the beat reporters and copy editors all the way up to the editorial board, plus all the foreign bureaus with their own reporters, a "real" newspaper needs to support a ton of people. I'm also a huge fan of investigative reporting, which you rarely ever see outside of major newspapers because the paper and the reporters must invest a huge amount of time and money.

Aggregation sites are nothing like a real newspaper. But at least Ars Technica has a large amount of original content (including their great feature articles), instead of resorting to Huffington Post-style click generation with "articles" that summarize someone else's hard work.

Re:Why the Paywall Hate? (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 10 months ago | (#46160901)

Not everyone here hate paywalls. But those who do will be much more vocal than those who don't.

Re:Why the Paywall Hate? (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 10 months ago | (#46161015)

Not everyone here hate paywalls. But those who do will be much more vocal than those who don't.

A lot of it isn't so much paywalls as it is fear that the Internet will end up sliced and diced with toll booths every other site. Like "net neutrality", that would convert a lot of free association into having to strategise your use based on financial considerations. We've already demonstrated that people self-limit themselves to their own detriment without forcing more limits on them. And, of course, it puts an additional chill on one of the www's greatest strengths: hyperlinking into a truly world-wide web.

Then again, some people are either:

* cheap

* broke

* selfish bastards who think that paying for anything that they absolutely cannot avoid paying for is being robbed

Re:Why the Paywall Hate? (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about 10 months ago | (#46160997)

Paywalls are fine for regular subscribers, but if you're just after 1 article, they are a nuisance at best and a rip-off at worst. Nag walls would be better; I can get that article I'm after and I might still be enticed to subscribe for more. Perhaps that's where the hate comes from: these days people don't read 1 or 2 newspapers, but get their news from a wide variety of sources, sometimes through links sent by their friends or posted in online discussions. It is not unreasonable to ask money for such content, but if you had to subscribe to each news source, things would get expensive real fast. Offer a few articles for free, or make it real easy (not registration + CC, but something like PayPal) to pay a reasonable amount for single articles, and people would pay. I know I would.

By the way, I ran into a (Dutch) site called The Correspondent [decorrespondent.nl] , which offers no news but a fixed panel of columnists writing about the affairs of the day, and a discussion forum for members. The surprising thing is that this site was paywalled from the get-go (though every now and then they offer articles that can be freely shared). It's been rather successful thus far; apparently there are plenty of people out there willing to pay for online content.

Re:Why the Paywall Hate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46161199)

Paywalls are too much trouble.

My internet cache is cleared when I close Firefox, and I don't want to mess around typing in a different username and password every time I use a site.

Lastly, who trusts newspaper proprietors? Am I going to give them my CC details so that they can link all my online activity with my real-world data? Like hell.

4 words.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160895)

4 words....freedom of information...bitches! news of all kinds should be free.

Giantbomb (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46160907)

I've got a paid Giantbomb.com subscription. Not really for the news, because that is free. But a bit of the video content is subscriber only, and I just enjoy all their content and want to support them in creating more. Kind of a bummer that my money (in theory) goes to CBS now, but if people stopped subscribing because of that the site would probably get shutdown instantly.

The Onion (2)

dohzer (867770) | about 10 months ago | (#46160913)

America's Finest News Source

Economist and NYT - but with conditions (1)

Dean Edmonds (189342) | about 10 months ago | (#46160919)

I currently do pay for The Economist.

I would pay for the New York Times as well if they provided cheaper pricing options. I wouldn't mind paying $10 a month to read 30 articles of my choice, but I don't like having to take a full subscription just to access the handful of content which interests me.

Google News (1)

cnxsoft (2455964) | about 10 months ago | (#46160927)

The paywall often disappears if you access the news sites via Google (News), so you just need to search for the article's title, and click to access the full article. Sorry... I know.. I'm a bad boy...

Only one (1)

Buchenskjoll (762354) | about 10 months ago | (#46160977)

politiken.dk.

As long as (2)

rossdee (243626) | about 10 months ago | (#46161001)

I'm not the one paying

None (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46161003)

I can't believe we're still being expected to pay for information!! Unbelievable.

Asahi Shimbun (2)

JanneM (7445) | about 10 months ago | (#46161031)

We get the digital Asahi Shimbun. It gets us all editions of the full paper, including a browsable, zoomable PDF copy of the morning paper edition, at a price slightly lower than the paper edition cost us earlier.

The reason is mostly convenience: I and my wife can both access the website and the iPad and Android apps at the same time, through the same subscription. With the paper we'd get only a single copy, so I'd end up bringing yesterdays evening paper on the train in the mornings while she'd read the morning edition.

Is this 2001? (1)

Mr Mango (2929691) | about 10 months ago | (#46161089)

Wow, I thought the online papers etc trying to charge had dispeared ?! There were worries that newpapers were going to lose too many readers in print and started charging online.. assumed this had died. Never will pay for news, it's freely available and actually most are behind the social networks at getting anything up to date.

Always be free news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46161127)

News can come from a lot of different sources. People don't just read the Tribune or New York Times. People surf for news. Given the fact that many news organizations are supported by commercial ads. I doubt I would ever justify paying for a news source.
Some specialty sources like financial or sports might be worth their insight and in depth reporting. Otherwise most just want headlines these days anyway. It is very hard to justify news fee's to readers simply because of the shear number of sources offering the same news for free.

Ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46161143)

Newspapers and magazines have NEVER made money on the publishing and printing of news. They made their $$ on advertising. I refuse to pay for online news, but I will tolerate a reasonable level of advertising as long as it isn't "get in your face" obnoxious.

Playboy.com (1)

ctrl-alt-canc (977108) | about 10 months ago | (#46161151)

'nuff said.

None. (1)

Stumbles (602007) | about 10 months ago | (#46161159)

In the 10 or so years I have been surfing the web. There is no site I have ever run across that I would pay to read.

Given that you can get any story free... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46161191)

...why would you ever pay?

no nag or advertisements?
Use adblock and scriptblock

Anyway, The Onion, as all the relevant truth about everything, so why go further?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?