Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Current Events' started by edesignuk, Aug 6, 2009.
mmmm, paying to read news online from one of this guys outlets?
Don't think so.
I think I'll stick with the BBC.
In the morning I can lie in bed reading the Guardian on my iPhone while my partner reads the print copy delivered to the door
(Don't ask why. )
How much longer though?
Like a group of nervous swimmers at the edge of a cold swimming pool the online papers/news groups are just looking for the first one to dive in and say "the water's lovely" and they'll all jump in.
So when News Crap gets in the momentum is probably going to be enough for the rest. The BBC may resist for a while, but with license fees in dispute they are probably thinking about it already.
I'll give the Independent online a shot then..
There's no mention of this or News Corp's £2 billion loss on the Sky News website.
I suppose it's too much to hope for News Corp to collapse.
But "Loss Making ITV sells Friends Reunited" is headline news.
Or, more to the point:
"Murdoch signals end of News Corp."
I guess I'll be removing The Times from my bookmarks then.
But what am I going to do without my weekly fix of Caitlin Moran?
Any competitor to Murdoch's is going to keep it free and watch his readership tank. If they've not charged for this long, a couple of years won't hurt much. How great these competitors must feel knowing that they're gaining all of Murdoch's visitors?!
It's easy to make something paid for free, it's nearly impossible to make something free costly.
No big loss
Actually, because the BBC (UK at least) is license fee based I don't think they'd be allowed to charge for a web news service. The license fee covers that cost.
As for Rupert Murdoch's grand idea, I think it will fall flat. As long as there are free news sources on the internet, a paid subscription service will struggle immensely. Murdoch's idea will only work if all main stream news services changed to a subscription based model.
Which, as you say (in the UK at least), is impossible since the BBC is "free" because we already pay for it.
Sky News my arse, BBC!!!
I'll got back to the NYT, no problem.
I may not like Murdoch, but I have to admit that he has some stones doing this. He's trying to lead the charge of tackling a very real problem. Unless news becomes profitable again, it will be harder and harder to get it. Who's going to travel to Iraq or other dangerous locales to report to the people unless there is financial incentive to do so? All of our news can't be run by blogs.
While a lot can be said of RM, he's always been a contrarian.
Maybe this will help them pay for all the fibre lines they're laying down in the US..
Thats okay Rupert, Aunty Beeb splurts news in my direction.
They have already announced they are looking to become a fee based site. I bet many newspapers go that route.
I been listing to NPR about this and knew it was coming for weeks. My understanding is they are going to try to leave most of it free but it will be a lot of the special content that will be on the charging. That content could be things like extra photos, no ads, certain columns ect.
Like it or not news is not free. It does cost money to get it. Just we have become use to getting it for free. It used to be to get news we have to buy a news paper. Hell I like reading a news paper over it online. It is easier on the eyes and i can read it a lot faster which is the same for everyone.
Now as soon as I get my own house I will get a daily delivery of a news paper again and i would hope that the subscription would give me access to the paid stuff online or at least it should.
My thoughts as well.
Interestingly enough NDM (News corp online in Aus) have basically looked at the current traffic and have speculated that the same amount of people would sign up for the paid subscription and forecasted profits from that number.
IMHO a user pays system for "general" online news wont yield the profits they are expecting, I'm calling this FAIL. Even thought online ads are floundering ATM they will over time bounce back but paid subscription for news sites considering the choice online is a bad idea especially coming from the likes of News Corp.
I understand with the paid subscription there will be not ads and slightly more content, but I fail to see how it will generate the interest they are predicting.
Thank god I never read anything owned by my Murdoch
I'll happily stick with the BBC thank you.
The Wall Street Journal (owned by News Corp) has been doing this since before Murdoch bought them. You can get online access free with a paper subscription though. My dad and i split ours, he gets the paper and I get the logon.
So Murdoch didn't invent this, he's just reneging on his intentions to make WSJ.com free AND he's spreading the idea elsewhere. Bah.
Pay MONEY to get Fox News??????
"Murdoch signals end of free news"
Is this free, as in beer? Or free, as in "Not under the influence of a megalomaniacal owner?" Only one of those is news..