Jump to content

Paying for your online news


Gary

Would you pay for your online news?  

31 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you pay for your online news?

    • Yes
    • No
    • Maybe


Recommended Posts

I think the "freeloader deniers" are missing the point. Yes, they pay for an internet service, much in the same way as they pay for a TV licence. But they get the "content", whether it be news or anything else, for nothing.

Why should they expect this as of a right?

I suspect the people who provide the content get no share of the money paid to service providers - in fact, they actually pay to put their information on the web. Anyone who has ever built a website knows that!

The other point is that the "deniers" say they can get their news elsewhere so why should they pay for it online. What would their attitude be if they could no longer do so, because that is what is going to eventually happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't know what your occupations are, or were, but would you work for free?

 

Horace, some of us do!!!!!!

 

I put more hours in doing my "Free" jobs than when I used to work for a living. I produce and am editor of a "FREE" mothly magazine for the local community.

Not only do I not get any financial reward, I also have to find the money to produce it. That is just one example (which sometimes involves a 7 day week) of the "FREE" work that I do.

 

Also I know a lot of people who work for nothing. They are now known as the Third Sector. (ie volunteers).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too work for free Horace. I run my own business and every month I turn into the unpaid tax collector for the government whereby I have to work out and then pay the tax and NI for all my employees. Then, every quarter I again have to spend my time working out how much VAT I have to be raped of. I then have to send that money to the government and I now even have to put a stamp on the envelope and pay for the priviledge as they stopped sending pre-paid envelopes out last year

 

I do more free work to pay money to this stinking cesspit of a government than some doley chav who does nothing but hold his hand out to take from them

 

I also offer free advice in my line of business to many schools in the local area and beyond and I also travel around the place at my expense in order to do so.

 

Not everyone gets paid for the work they do and you don't have to be a volunteer to fall into the free worker category!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the "freeloader deniers" are missing the point. Yes, they pay for an internet service, much in the same way as they pay for a TV licence. But they get the "content", whether it be news or anything else, for nothing.

Why should they expect this as of a right?

I suspect the people who provide the content get no share of the money paid to service providers - in fact, they actually pay to put their information on the web. Anyone who has ever built a website knows that!

The other point is that the "deniers" say they can get their news elsewhere so why should they pay for it online. What would their attitude be if they could no longer do so, because that is what is going to eventually happen?

 

Anyone who owns their own server pays nothing to put information on the web. The news placed online, which is the ONLY content under discussion here, is public information, freely available to all of us, and it should remain that way. Do not sit there and tell me that there are two teams of newsgathering bods, one for print and one for online, because it's nonsense. The columns that are typed into computers and emailed around the place to be printed are then posted from those same computers, word for word. The computer systems and servers are already networked into news organisations in order for them to communicate with their own international offices.

 

The fact of the matter is that online services are a sensible extension of business to get maximum use from existing resources, an opportunity to increase readership and a revenue stream via additional advertising. If anything you have to say was true, nobody would bother having an online news service at all, now would they? Mr Murdoch is not enough of a philanthropist to chuck money away on it..... let's face it, he's shrewd enough to work out that there are SOME people out there who are daft enough to pay him twice for one set of headlines..... naming no names. :twisted:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the "freeloader deniers" are missing the point. Yes, they pay for an internet service, much in the same way as they pay for a TV licence. But they get the "content", whether it be news or anything else, for nothing.

Why should they expect this as of a right?

I suspect the people who provide the content get no share of the money paid to service providers - in fact, they actually pay to put their information on the web. Anyone who has ever built a website knows that!

The other point is that the "deniers" say they can get their news elsewhere so why should they pay for it online. What would their attitude be if they could no longer do so, because that is what is going to eventually happen?

 

Hi Horrace it's 'Dizzy the freeloader denier here'.

 

I've just read the daily 'paper version' newspaper and also had a quick look at the headlines on Virdin Media's website.. just to get the balance right.

 

Is there any reason why you are not listening too, or trying to understand, the points that some of us are trying to make .

 

If we can buy a newspaper from the corner shop or have it delivered by a local paper'person' or even hear the news on the TV then why on earth would we want to PAY extra to read the same stuff online.

 

Unless you are suggesting that ever newspaper publisher will take the giant step to go completely 'paperless' and only provide electronic news then you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

Must admit I am struggling to understand where you are coming from at times as your post above seems to infer that we should all pay our ISP's and TV licences but expect nothing in return as pay to access or read anything that is available on the IPS's home page. You say the 'providers' etc do not get paid for the online 'content'.... Really :lol::lol: Of course they do in one way or another.

 

Anyway at the end of the day it's all down to personal choice and however one person decides to spend their money may not be the same as someonelses choice.

 

PS... In answer to your earlier question yes I too sometimes work for free don't ask me why but I do. And YES I have also built some web sites... its fun isn't :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Horace just fancied having a go at someone and we looked like a soft target.... either that or he IS Rupert Murdoch and is starting his revolution on WW. With Runcorn the murder capital of England this week, it could happen. You heard it here first - and for free. :lol:

 

Is Horace proposing that Gary should be paying us if we write something on here that brings other people to the site to chuckle? Should Obs be on a wordage rate? Can I put in for a sarcasm surcharge on my sharper days? Do we deduct for Eagle's puns? :shock: Ooooh, someone catch Gary, I think he's swooning at the thought...... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fall in Newspaper Sales Accelerates to Pass 7%

By TIM ARANGO

Published: April 27, 2009

The rate of decline in print circulation at the nation?s newspapers has accelerated since last fall, as industry figures released Monday show a more than 7 percent drop compared with the previous year, while another recent analysis showed that newspaper Web site audiences had increased 10.5 percent in the first quarter.

Of the top 25 newspapers in the United States, all posted declines in circulation except for The Wall Street Journal, which eked out a 0.6 percent gain, according to figures released by the Audit Bureau of Circulations. For the others, the declines ranged from 20.6 percent for The New York Post, to a slight 0.4 percent drop for The Chicago Sun-Times.

Both The Post and The Journal are owned by the News Corporation, the media conglomerate controlled by Rupert Murdoch??..

?One shouldn?t be in denial that this represents people quitting newspapers to get news from the Web,? Mr. Edmonds said. ?But there are many other factors.?

Among those factors, he said, are newspapers making reductions in what is known in the industry as ?junk circulation? ? things like free newspapers distributed at trade shows or in schools. At the same time, he said, some papers have increased prices in an effort to wring more revenue from their core readers while doing away with cheap introductory offers to attract new readers.

?To that extent, it?s voluntary,? Mr. Edmonds said.

While newspaper circulation has long been in decline, the latest figures show the drop is accelerating. ?.Both of New York City?s major tabloids, which in recent years have fought circulation battles, reported steep drops in weekday circulation. Circulation fell more than 20 percent at The New York Post, and 14.3 percent at The Daily News.

Meanwhile, the audience for newspaper Web sites continues to grow. In the first quarter of 2009, newspaper Web sites attracted more than 73 million unique visitors each month, on average, according to an analysis by Nielsen Online for the Newspaper Association of America. That is a 10.5 percent increase from the first quarter of 2008.

 

Finally the article finishes with the following statement?

Times Reader 2.00: Daily delivery of the Times straight to your computer - Subscribe $3.45

 

If you add to the evidence the introduction of new palm top devises for downloading newspapers and books, the preference of youngsters for electronic media and the need to stop chopping down trees for newsprint the decline will continue.

 

If this then leads to even more newspaper closures, especially local and regional, then charges for online news will be taken up by more and more people because there will be less of an alternative. Aren't ITV struggling to produce local news?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but I did credit the source and no payment was requested.

 

In the work I am doing for my dissertation, I am finding that more and more research papers are on sites where you do have to pay to read the full paper. Traditionally this hasn't been the case.

 

The where many reasearch papers reside give you a tantalising extract to act as bait. :wink:

 

The world of information is continues to evolve and charging for knowledge is at last bearing fruit for those who have it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Research papers are different though - the actual information contained in there is the result of someone's work. The news is public domain information (granted that people work to format and present it). If you have research results, they are your property and you have a right to sell them. If we are talking about the latest political/sporting/entertainment information, it damn well doesn't belong to Rupert Murdoch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sky and a lot of news agencies "invite" the public to send in their videos and photos of various news events as they are happening (such was the case in Cumbria when the floods were on) .... I'm pretty sure they didn't reciprocate with a nice fat cheque to cover the viewers costs and expenses! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are still all (most of you, anyway) missing the point.

What amazes me is that you apparently think you have a right to get news free.

I accept the point that as long as news is available elsewhere (TV, radio, newspapers) there would seem little point in going online for it.

Forget radio and TV. They give only a broad outline of the news and a lot of what they do give is pinched from the newspapers anyway.

Does anyone remember how TV struggle during the last newspaper strike? Probably not.

But apparently, a growing number of people are getting their news from the web. Given that they COULD be getting it from papers, one must assume they have worked out they can get it for free from the web and have stopped buying the papers. The declining sales of newspapers seems to bear this out.

So eventually we will reach the "tip over" point where more people are reading online than buying papers. I suspect Murdock has made a prediction when this will be.

That is the time when you will have to decide whether you would pay for online news. Because the papers won't be there any more and, yes, it will save a few trees!

Everyone seems to think the news they read on the web is already paid for by a print version of the same publication and in some cases they are right. But there are many online news services (and I think this is one of them) which are not allied to a major publishing conglomerate but, according to you lot, should still provide the news for free.

Nobody has a RIGHT to get anything free in this life, except the air we breath.

I repeat. I find it absolutely amazing that any thinking person should think they are entitled to news for free. I accept that, human nature being what it is, you will accept it for free if it is offered. But that is rather different that a RIGHT surely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your point is that YOU think YOU should pay for news. OK, We agree if it shuts you up. Please do go ahead and send your weekly cheque direct to Rupert.

 

I have every right to public domain information without charge or hindrance, whether that is detail of the latest antics of the government I elected (or opposed, as the case may be), or the number of tigers left in Sumatra. Nobody has the right to restrict information in any way. That is the reason we have countries like Iraq where the vast majority of the population believed the government version of events because it was all they ever got.

 

FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.

 

Any of these ringing a vague bell with you? Well, probably not, given where your head is positioned, it'd all be a bit muffled.

 

We are all astonished to find one in our midst who would like a return to the Middle Ages, where only the rich heard the news whilst it was fresh. Now, how much can I charge you for that bit of information? :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok Horace I think I am now starting to understand where you are coming from just as I think you may have started to understand where some of us are coming from... so that's a start :lol:

 

Rather than dwell over what's already been said as we'll obviously never agree here's a compromise......

 

Yes at present most online news is free to access so I will access it.

 

Yes at present it is possible to buy daily 'paper' newspapers so I will occasionally but them.

 

... and IF online news ever becomes a paid for commodity by the current newspaper providers then I will not subscribe as to be honest it would be very difficult to decide which one to subscribe too as the news is so different in them all unless it is solely local news of course. :wink:

 

And finally if local newspapers start charging then I'll just wait until you (or A N Other) subscribes and you can 'copy and paste' any important or worthwhile local article content into an email and send me them for FREE :lol:

 

Infact you could do that for national news too and for all of us and we could all buy you a beer at Christmas's and birthdays to come :lol:

 

PS and before you say that web sites can easily block the 'copying and pasting of info'... they can't :wink::P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horace wont be selling it LP so he should be ok... we are just buying a dear friend a beer :wink::lol:

 

And if he uses his brains he won't get done for copyright as there will be no proof of where he got his info from :wink:

 

But then again maybe we should pay Horace to do an EXACT 'copy and paste' of the info so it can be traced..... what do you think :wink::lol:

 

Sorry Horace I'm only kidding 8)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what makes sense getting 25 per cent of the readership to pay and losing 75 per cent who are not prepared to pay.

Bandwidth charges would reduce considerably due to less traffic saving us a small fortune and most of the ones who want free news probably switch on ad blocker or ignore the adverts any way.

No brainer really - now where is that pay wall? :roll::wink::lol:

 

Considering only 24 people have even bothered to vote the rest must be willing to pay as well! :D:twisted:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...