I read a few nespapers on line. We have two good ones here, Miami Herald and Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel. I gave up on the Herald because they wanted money for access. Today, the Sun-Sentinel blocks me unless I pay 4.00 for 5 weeks access. BullE36 M3. Is this common out there? I know papers are struggling, but is this necessary?
The only paper I'm willing to pay for is the Saint Louis Evening Whirl.
I think you meant, "what is the deal with newspapers?" 
Independent news is in the E36 M3ter.
I wonder what happens when all the independent news sources who once stood for something have gone so far under that all the stories they run come from the same subscription service and we are left with just the moguls who craft stories for profit.
They are losing money, both advertising and subscribers, so they try to make you pay for online access, thinking they will make money this way. For me, I just go elsewhere for my news.
In reply to MG Bryan:
Good to know I'm not alone.
Are they struggling? Yes. Is this necessary? Probably not.
The local paper by me makes each newspaper free for a day in an image format. Not searchable or terribly convenient, but you can read the paper for free, people still see their ads, and bits over the Internet are cheaper than printed paper...
Twelve cents per day is certainly cheaper than buying it from the newsstand, no?
I hate reading the news on a computer. Give me newsPAPER.
Wait, Chuck, do you subscribe to the print edition, or are you expecting to get their stories gratis?
Margie
So you're mad because you can't get something that took hours of somebody's time to create for free.
Makes sense.
Speaking as a former journalist (who escaped newspapers after five years of seeing them slowly spinning around the bowl) the idea of getting news for nothing is ridiculous.
If you want garbage writing from people without any formal training in journalism, meaning ethics, media law and the basic ability to put words together to form legible sentences, then feel free to ask for your news to be free.
I can get the kid down the street to work on my car for free, why should I pay a professional mechanic money?
I'm expecting to read their stories for free. They make lots of money on the ads. The more readership/clicks the more they make on the ads.
Wall Street Journal is the worst.
Newspapers are going out of business. They are trying to transition to an on-line medium as their subscriber base continues to dwindle. They do not make lots of money on ads, not any more. Some very big papers, maybe, but many are in the red and getting worse year after year. Many have already shut down all together. By and large, the on-line transition is failing. It works well as long as they give away their content, but that doesn’t pay a staff, and on-line ads make much less than print ads.
Newspapers provide far more in-depth coverage of local news than television stations. To do that, traditionally, they employ a large editorial staff. That is how they differentiated their product. TV only has a few minutes, but you can “self-edit” as you read a paper. You skip around to the parts you like, so more content isn’t a problem. No one gets bored and changes the channel. If they cut down to smaller staff, they’ll just duplicate the work already being done by the television stations – which also have video and sound and ability to cover breaking news live. That’s a model for failure even more quickly than they’re failing now.
In reality, it looks like the days of the newspaper as we know it are numbered. Almost no one under 40 subscribes. On-line content is regarded by most as something that should be provided for free. There just doesn’t seem to be a model that works for a normal local newspaper in this day and age. It’s sad. Ironically, as people make choices that doom the papers, they also complain that “the media” isn’t providing enough in-depth and balanced coverage, as if they consume all media and have any notion what is available.
Guess that's the catch - he's not convinced of the value (If all they are producing is regurgitated syndicate stories I wouldn't pay either). The old papers that are cited in all the journalism and legal textbooks for making stands on constitutional issues and hardcore journalism are all pretty much shells of themselves - I think GPS' version is closer than you think.
DaveEstey wrote: So you're mad because you can't get something that took hours of somebody's time to create for free. Makes sense. Speaking as a former journalist (who escaped newspapers after five years of seeing them slowly spinning around the bowl) the idea of getting news for nothing is ridiculous. If you want garbage writing from people without any formal training in journalism, meaning ethics, media law and the basic ability to put words together to form legible sentences, then feel free to ask for your news to be free. I can get the kid down the street to work on my car for free, why should I pay a professional mechanic money?
The cost of producing on paper and delivering is gone on the web, which was what the sub was covering (and not entirely at that). The advertising is how every newspaper makes it's money and pays it's bills. That is still there so the "free" analogy isn't exactly correct. I do think that real, unbiased news is something worth funding though - someone needs to keep the wolves at bay. Obviously the old models do not work well today for newspapers or the music business.
I would be happy to pay for a sub to real investigative journalists who send me news in whatever format can be produced so they can stay in business. I'm not sure who is in that business anymore so I end up grifting a pile of sites to try to triangulate the real story from many accounts.
I'd like something for nothing too!
Where's my free lunch?!
Newspapers (and other traditional content providers) no longer can count on advertisers subsidizing their subscribers. Advertisers ALSO expect the internet to give them what they need for little or nothing.
This is why the old guard of journalism, and the standard of producing unique, investigative content, is disappearing. Papers can no longer afford it. And readers have voted with their wallets to indicate they do not want it, and are content with what boils down to rehashed press releases released in syndicated form.
Editorially, what we're left with is a mishmash of crap irresponsibly aimed at populist viewpoints (in a desperate bid to boost circ numbers) that approaches Soviet-era levels of propaganda.
It's worth exactly what people are willing to pay.
Margie
Clarification. FIRST month is 4.00. Afterwards, 10.00. We're talking real money, now. I guess that what irritates me is that we got it for free, and now they want paid. Grrr.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: The cost of producing on paper and delivering is gone on the web, which was what the sub was covering (and not entirely at that).
That's not entirely accurate. There are still costs connectd with providing on-line content in a reliable and roubust way.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: The advertising is how every newspaper makes it's money and pays it's bills. That is still there so the "free" analogy isn't exactly correct.
That's grossly inaccurate. Revenue from on-line sales is a small fraction of the revenue that was generated with print sales. People are just well trained to ignore on-line advertising. I buy media as part of my job. Television, cable, print and outdoor are expensive. On-line is absurdly inexpensive by comparison because, by and large, it’s much less effective. There are specific things it works well for, but it just isn’t the equivalent of print advertising. Not by a long shot.
cwh wrote: Clarification. FIRST month is 4.00. Afterwards, 10.00. We're talking real money, now. I guess that what irritates me is that we got it for free, and now they want paid. Grrr.
They want to be paid?! Imagine that! I'm reasonably sure that if they stopped paying you to do your job, you'd stop doing it.
It was never "free". It's just that the model that accounted for the revenue no longer works. You can't sell advertising if you can't sell papers. Think that's bad? Phone books are the worst. NO ONE uses the phone book, but they make money selling advertising too. That's why they continue to dump them on your door step even though you don't want it. It let's them claim circulation numbers.
Little hint: This board is subsidized by subscriber dollars. The advertising doesn't even cover monthly maintenance, never mind staff time or server fees.
Margie
Margie- I can understand your points. Your publication is the real rarity in the print world, because you DO supply true journalism, even if it mostly car related. Don't change that, survive and thrive.
Marjorie Suddard wrote: Blah, blah, keeping it shorter ..... It's worth exactly what people are willing to pay. Margie
I don't want to Troll off onto a tangent, but how is this horrible different than what you see evry night on the National news?
Yes, you should pay for online news papers.
Dan
You'll need to log in to post.
