Amazon.com Widgets

Charging for news content: Should newspapers charge for content online?

  • Subscribing to an online newpaper should cost money.

    If people are starting to look at virtual newpapers rather than buying physical ones, Then how are the reporters supposed to be paid for what they do? I think a daily subscription should cost the same as how much it is to buy a physical one, So it could work out.

  • People should have to, Because when you pay for online articles

    That has content that is behind a paywall which is only restrictive to people who read it. Now in order to subscribe to online newpapers or magazines, You will need to apply for a credit card because they won't allow money orders, Or checks. It would be very hard for people who don't have a credit card. It you want to pay for online subscription to read the content, You would have to apply for a credit card, And if you don't have a credit card, You can't subscribe to the online newspaper or magazine articles.

  • Newspapers should do what they believe is best for their business

    I like reading well-done reporting and quality news. I also hate the idea of paying to read articles at every single site I go to, but if a newspaper believes that putting their articles for a paywall is a better model for their business then they should do that. I personally think that an advertisement supported model would get them a larger audience and be more profitable, but if a newspaper disagrees with that, then they have to do what they have to do.

  • Freedom of Speech DOES NOT APPLY When you CHARGE for it!

    I am a firm believer that Newspapers and Journalism outlets should be held accountable for the information they put out there. The current state of affairs is that they sensationalize EVERYTHING in order to bring traffic to their site, And monetize the readers by using subscription services or paywalls. This is unacceptable, If they wish to profit from information then there needs to be a way to ENSURE the information is accurate - or else they lose a proportionate amount in the form of fines and fees.
    Their current model limits the spread of information, Promotes income disparity by depriving people who CANNOT justify spending their food money on reading what amounts to be an entertainment article, And is an absolute eyesore.

  • Knowledge and current events should be free news outlets shouldnt be allowed to paywall information

    I raise it that making people pay to keep up to date or read some news stories online is ridiculous news outlets shouldn't be allowed to profit through trying to force you to buy a membership furthermore paywalling is a despicible practice that favours the rich and demonises the poor in regards to acwuiring vital world information

  • Paywalls are not sustainable

    Most newspapers have a political bias and censor comments (if they even allow comments). Each publication is looking for you to pay. It is not sustainable. Eventually the content behind the paywall will be seen for free someplace else. I don’t know where the answer lies for these publications. We can filter add out online. No one is going to pay per publication.

  • Absolutely not paying for news

    I personally don’t trust reporters, Why would I pay for them to lie to me? Besides, Why charge readers anything, Most news outlets are owned by political boosters that want to push an agenda. Charging for content would limit the sheep they can indoctrinate. This is just another scam from our broken media.

  • News is important

    Right now, I was checking an article about a company to see if working with them on placement would be safe due to various incidents. . Except I can't check because of a pay-wall. I don't see why we should pay money to see information which was known to be for the public, Not the minority. Also, Many students would use news articles to reference from, So to restrict this information is also causing issues for many people.

  • Public information should be free.

    News, Fake or real, Should be made available to all classes of the population rich and poor. By charging a fee, Lower class members of communities will not get the necessary information to make educated, Rational decisions come voting time. . . . Possible that is how it is intentional designed, Increasing the divide between rich and poor.

  • Biased media 'reports'

    No because the news hasn't been very good reporing lately across all boards.
    If they are going to report things, it should be accurate and unbiased.
    They also aren't repotting on things like the slaughter of whire farmers in South Africa because they are too busy reporting a trump tweet.
    It's pathetic and I won't pay until they start doing their jobs probably.
    Enough with is enough of this crap

  • Online newspaper charges are ridiculous

    If I want to know what is happening in different parts of the world and to also get diverse opinions, it would be crazy to think I should have to pay for each newspaper article that I might want to read. TV and radio news do not charge, but reading many viewpoints does lead to a better understanding of any news. I realize that newspapers have to make money, but advertising could cover that.
    I think that now newspapers will really lose even more money.

  • Newpapers charging for online content may ultimately lose readers and advertisers

    As long as newspapers online editions contain advertising, I will not subscribe. I can listen to radio for free - supported by advertisers. People be screaming if their local radio stations went to a subscription only basis.
    I can view news on the online sites of television stations (often with more up to date news than the newpaper), for free - supported by advertisers.
    Newspapers want to have it both ways - they want to make money from the advertisers AND the consumers. I understand the additional costs for a print edition & have no problem with charging subscribers for that. The costs for an online edition are minimal - hosting, basic site maintenance and data input (copying what is already in the print edition.)
    If I was an advertiser, I would rather spend my online $$ at the site that gives me the best CPM - how many eyes will see my ad . As the newpapers lose online viewers to non-subscription sources, their value to an advertiser drops.

  • No, newspapers shouldn't charge.

    I don't believe that newspapers should charge for content online. I don't think too many people would pay because there are too many other sites that post news for free. If newspapers want to make money from their websites, they can simply continue to profit from the advertising and figure out better ways to make more in that regard. I think it would ultimately be more profitable.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.