Online News Source Paywalls

1. 82

   GA Andersonposted 5 years ago

   From the beginning, 'Free' was the mantra of the internet.
   
   Now, the internet has become such an integral part of life that it is changing many long-time paradigms. From retail purchases to daily information, the internet has changed everything..
   
   Specific to my point: News sources.
   
   In the past, a Google search led to all kinds of information sources. Now, it leads to all kinds of paywalls to news sources.
   
   Now, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and even little known obscure sources are demanding payment for their services, aka information.
   
   Who is losing?
   
   I am stuck in the "free" mindset of the early internet. However, I am not declaring paywalls wrong. Those news source folks aren't in the game solely to provide a public service, and I don't blame them for seeking to monetize their efforts. After all, who buys a physical newspaper these days? How are they expected to stay in business?
   
   But, who loses? Me, because I lose the value of their reporting, or them because they lose the value of my eyes on their advertisements?
   
   I say they lose because there are alternative sources building to their, (NYT, WaPo), level of credibility, that is still free. One example; I am noting an increasing frequency of the LATimes ranking for national issues.
   
   I think it would be better for the paywall sites to monetize their efforts with ads and maintain their market share of views, (and credibility), rather than limit their exposure to paid subscribers—which should naturally impact the determination of credibility.
   
   What do you think? Should I just bite the bullet and pay to see what the WaPo has to say?
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 90

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      If it were not for the ad blockers I would agree.
      
      But news sources, real ones reporting news not just commentary, are in it for profit.  They deserve to be paid for their efforts.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I see your point about ad blockers. I also understand publishers need to profit.
         
         Eastward nailed it; it's a value judgment—for both the reader and the publisher.
         
         GA

         replyreport
   2. 70

      Eastwardposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I'd say willingness to pay for a media source subscription depends on its value to you, GA. If you feel the journalism is superior to that of the up-and-comers, then it would make sense to subscribe. If alternative news sources are providing equal or better coverage for a lesser price or even for free, they would be my go-to (and currently find that to be the case). Of course, there's nothing wrong with getting news from both. I also tend towards the up-and-comers as they are willing to take risks and seem a little less heavy on a corporate driven agenda.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I agree with your perspective.
         
         GA

         replyreport
   3. 85

      Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I think Newspapers were one of the first to implement paywalls on their websites as a way to increase revenue due to years of decline in paid print readership and loss of advertising revenue, Also ad blockers made it hard to financially sustain their internet sites for free. I can't imagine what it would cost to maintain a site that requires tech support, as well as host server fees.  In the first years of the internet, Google ads would bring in good revenue. Google got stingy, and it's all about pay to play. I guess it's us that have to pay the bills and provide revenue. In regard to media/newspaper sites. In my opinion, some just have lost credibility and are not worth paying for anymore. I find it harder every day to find information that I feel I can really trust.

      replyreport