ethecofem

Would you pay for online news? | January 21, 2010

by April

The New York Times is going to be charging for their content.

In the discussion over at Feministe, I wrote:

I think this is okay. I listen to NPR for like, 60 hours a week, and I give them $10.50 a month. If I really read the NYT every day and valued it that much, I wouldn’t really have a problem with it, other than an initial disapointment at paying for something I’m used to getting for free.

I think it’s similar to music downloading. I still download stuff for free once in a while, but I have a paid Rhapsody account and sometimes buy songs on iTunes.

I think that if they make the benefits great enough, eventually, no one will mind.

And then, once I thought about it a little more,

On second thought, though… if this does become accepted by most people, then it’s likely to catch on to other online news sources, which would make free and accessible information limited to people who can’t afford to subscribe to a paper. It’s so great that information is so readily accessible to virtually everyone now, and this could potentially limit information to the people who have the financial means to pay for it.

I’m torn on this…

What do you think about charging for online newspapers? Reasonable, dangerous, expected?

Posted in blogging, ethics, journalism, news, reader participation
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

3 Comments »

  1. The problem with all this free online media – where does the money come from to pay for it?
    I think it would be a good idea if newspapers opened PayPal funds so that you could donate to support them if you read on line instead of in print; or if they introduced a voluntary paid subscription program which gave you some extra benefits and access, but kept most of their on-line content free. I’m unemployed right now, but when I get a job, I’d be happy to pay £20 a year for a sub to the The Guardian and The Observer.
    The problem is really a psychological one: people don’t really feel like stuff on the internet or computers is real. I have loads of films and music on download, but I only really feel like I “own” a copy of something if I have it on hard media like DVD or CD – even old VHS that I’ve taped from TV feel more like mine than things from iTunes. If people get over this hurdle they will be more willing to pay; if they don’t, eventually the amount of online content will start to fall, because there is no money to pay for production.
    This kind of situation shows the advantage of the BBC model; a flat rate payment, vast amount of free to access content, no adverts – brilliant.

    Comment by David K — January 21, 2010 @ 11:56 am

    Reply

    • This kind of situation shows the advantage of the BBC model;

      And fortunately the BBC and other countries’ government sponsored (but independent) news sites will continue to be free for everyone, meaning that there shouldn’t be any short term concerns about a lack of free news online.

      Comment by desipis — January 21, 2010 @ 12:08 pm

      Reply

  2. I think it comes down to what the news source is charging for said news. It doesn’t take as many people to maintain servers and archives as it does to print and deliver so it doesn’t make sense to try to charge as much for online news as for old physical paper.

    But another thing to consider is the people trying to get the information. I myself have only had high speed internet access available in my area for about the last 4 years. Despite what broadband providers may say it is way too soon to presume that the internet is widely available enough to let go of old physical paper and even if it is wrong to presume that enough people can afford said access.

    Honestly the only time I pick up a physical paper is when I’m in a store and actually see an interesting story on the front page.

    Comment by Danny — January 22, 2010 @ 12:48 am

    Reply

Say something? Comments RSS TrackBack URI