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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.