payment that is divided and shared by all newspapers, could make it more affordable. I just do not have the money for all the requests I get to donate, at one time I was able to do it , not anymore. Even for my favorite candidate I am unable to send even a dollar. Times have changed for me.

... that everything is FREE. I can just walk into any shop - like the place you work for instance - and just take what I want and walk out without paying for it. I don't have to concern myself with the labor you put into making that thing; I don't have to think about the fact that you have children to feed, and bills to pay, or anything. I can just walk in and take it because I am ENTITLED to it.

It's incredible how so many people expect that if something is available via the internet then they should get it at no cost.

in the arguments over the reporting to pay? Did I get that right? Much of Washington politico's should pay!

global warming, war, deregulation, supremes, GOP politicians, etc

the regular comparison of trump vs dem campaign funds is an example of the idiocy of ignoring talk radio. if trump paid $1000/hr for a 1 hr radio attack commercial the 1200 radio stations that attack democrats and make excuses for trump about 15 hrs/day are worth about $5BIL/yr. or $90,000,000/week. FREE

constant repetition to 50 mil a week, many of them just stuck in the car in traffic or trying to get some news or weather before going home to the family.

on the local level those attacks are coordinated at local and state dems worth about $75,000/week/station. and some states will have between 10 and 30 stations like that.

about $1BIL of that is endorsed by 87 of the biggest universities in the country, broadcasting sports on more than 260 limbaugh stations.

You're comparing apples and oranges. People aren't listening to talk radio to get news, a paywall is not the reason they're not reading the New York Times, and they're not going to suddenly start reading it if they can get it for free

republicans to deregulate and monopolize media more recently obstruct net neutrality with much of the same bullshit used to sell and push the tel com act of 96

People aren't listening to talk radio to get news,

but whether it's free or not makes little difference in how long it takes to get rid of these orange fucking republicans

to stay in business if they give their product away for free? It’s very expensive to maintain a new-gathering structure. Most are teetering on the edge already, and many have failed. Before the internet,we used to pay for actual newspapers. No newspaper worthy of the name gave them away for free. You could consider going to the library on the weekend, and read them for free there. P.S. there’s no “later” once they’ve gone under for lack of income.

That should pay for the product.

"You make minimum wage, that should be enough for you and your family."

It either is or isn't, but it's not really for outsiders to say.

The news stories are the product of labor paid for by the news organization involved.

The news organizations can set the fees for onscreen advertising. You know it is widely viewed.

Outsiders don't get a say? Are you an insider?

I tip the servers, so why should I have to pay for the food?

An online paper is no different from a print one - it’s a business and has staff.

I don’t comprehend how people seem to think the online version should magically be free when you pay a buck for a print paper. 🤷🏻?♀️ There are ads in a print paper, too, but there’s still a cost for most publications.

There are only a couple of free news sites that are good and ad-supported. Slate and Vox come to mind. But they have nowhere near the death of recording that say the Washington Post does.

And Slate also has a subscription option where subscribers get access to exclusive content.

We're not a charity.

This is why newspapers have to keep slashing staff. They are only generating a small fraction of the income they used to command. Paywalls help offset those losses to some degree.

because they are so easily blocked.

What guarantee is there of money later?

you know, but obviously you don't know this.

The owners of the nyt (Ochs-Sulzberger families) are worth a couple billion.

Do you even know who owns the post?

Part of the reason for newspapers' demise isn't just plagiarism and theft, but also ennui. Unless the volume's turned up to at least 12, we can't hear it. Stonehenge would need to really upgrade their equipment, with their *max* setting at 11.

Or did you mean "Spinal Tap"?

for newspapers to be delivered to their home? Or they picked one up at the local drug store?

If you wanted to read a newspaper without paying for it you just dropped in at the local public library.

Today you can still go to the library and read the newspaper for free or use the library computers to access the publications online - no charge.

I still pay for my daily paper to be delivered. I can read it online but I want to support the press - they are helping to keep the dictators at bay.

I pay for daily paper deliveries just for that reason.

The sense of entitlement these days is pretty amazing to me.

every morning, and read it while I drink a cup of coffee. It's almost $50 a month. Then, I add a tip for our carrier, who puts it on our porch to save me going out in my slippers. I pay for the paper, so it will keep being published. It's part of my news gathering each day, primarily for the local news coverage.

I'm glad to pay for it. I'm glad I can pay for it.

Just with antenna in most places, we cut out cable.

I usually find news online.

But I get what original poster was saying that without fairness doctrine things have really slanted to the right in regular tv.

for doing the expensive investigative reporting that we need.

I have to rotate which local papers' digital access I subscribe to because it has gotten quite expensive. I do subscribe to WAPO, but NYT is way out of my range.

But, yes, the very restrictive paywalls are a real problem. We need some major foundations to start making news access a priority or we all have to succumb to ad content. I honestly don't know what will turn it around. Few have the resources of Amazon. That said, once local media is gone it won't come back.

we so desperately need.

Everyone else is supposed to make a sacrifice, but you can't cough up a little extra to read and pay for stories you say are so critical at this moment in time?

when a free and active press isn’t critical.

look at paywalls, below, with the ins and outs, pros and cons.

One standout criticism is about how they reduce actual readership even though they increase revenue. Another standout criticism is exactly yours, that hard and soft paywalls leave out voices in a democracy, especially in times like these when more access to the same information is crucial.

One problem for the fourth estate:

If you are in it for money then you really arent unbiased and should not have freedom of the press applied.

Maybe I should ask to you to do it for me free of charge. How about that?

Nonprofits need money to survive, too, btw.

I think most newspapers are in it to tell the truth and provide access to important information, but they need to be able to pay their reporters and editors. Surely you don't think our best news sources should be run entirely with volunteers?

Newspapers are expensive to run and have been for profit since the founding of the republic.

Good luck finding them, by the way.

there is an online only newspaper. It's run by a husband and wife and somehow they are making a living from it. They are professional journalists and used to work for the small print newspaper here. That print newspaper has an online version with a paywall. The free one is a far better source for news. The print newspaper has not made money for years and has changed hands several times. If I had a business to advertise, it would be an obvious choice to go with the website with no paywall.

We had "paywalls" for many, many decades. It was called "buying a newspaper".

The people who collect and write up the information need to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. What is the revenue stream(s) that allows them to do that?

If they had to pay to use the airwaves, you wouldn't have free broadcasting.

What they “owe” aside from good journalists and their product is the money to pay them. If all the money comes from advertisers and not subscribers, guess who the newspapers will have to satisfy most?

Subscribe!

Pre-internet, newspapers weren't given away for free. People had to buy them.

I don't understand why people who have access to virtually unlimited free news every day feel entitled to complain when news outlets who have to pay reporters' and editors' salaries, travel, phones, newsrooms, etc., and foot the other expenses of gathering, producing and publishing a reliable, reputable product ask us to pay a minimum amount in return for the service they provide us.

Such as the CBC in Canada, and the BBC in the UK. Both in TV and radio.

I believe that, in our case in Canada, the CBC, even though it is increasingly being under-funded, and taking on more private ads, is the stalwart for all news companies. In that, much like having unions rises up all boats, as far as wages in non-union companies, the same concept is true in news media. If you have at least one source that is pretty well compelled to have their facts straight, because of public oversight, the others can't stray too far right, and fakenews from that. We also have monopolized right wing ownership of the other private media in this country. But the public broadcaster can keep the others in somewhat check.

Of course maybe I'm mixing apples with oranges. Newspapers vs audio and visual news media. But a strong public broadcaster can at least add a voice of reason, and potentially at least, speak truth to corporate power, because they don't rely on that support to exist. And then other private media, is at least forced to open up on the topics even if in opposition.

Brilliant idea.

We have become such a gimme gimme society, people are actually whining about having to pay for online newspapers...

No wonder people are so ignorant and uninformed.

“state-run media”. Another point to remember is that some people can’t afford even $10 a month. Surely they deserve to be just as informed as the rest of us. I pay for the WaPo online but I do think there could be a way to help out those without the funds. Maybe more advertising.

If more people were willing to pay for the content, the papers could more easily afford to offer it to people who can't pay for it.

News outlets offer many ways for people who can't afford them to access their coverage.

I am so unimpressed by whining about paying for news content. If you can afford it but don't want to pay for it, there are plenty of free sources you can access. Read those. If those aren't good enough for you but you're not willing to pay for content you acknowledge is superior, then that's your problem

that anyone who can afford to pay up should do so. As you said, they would then be able to help those who can’t afford it.

They just don't want to.

carry the big national papers but not all. In any case, I believe that those who can afford it should be willing to support quality journalism by paying for it.

in the same way that current ads are blocked.

I don’t know the answer. I think people who support a free press should pay for it if they can. I’m just thinking of people on limited, fixed incomes and how they can access quality journalism. The library can be one way.

Not State, but Federally funded. Much like the postal service.

And insurances put in place that it is arms length from government interference. Of course an elected Conservative government can come in and cut funding, and add their own appointees to the board to make decisions, as has happened. But basically the structure is always there, one that has public oversight, and is not dependent on private corporate support.

If you are implying that this would be an impossible thing to do at this present day and age in America? I would sadly have to agree. The RW has demonized anything hinting at anything government funded, even with the assurance of being arms length structured. They will never believe that is possible. Here too there is a consistent RW voice complaining how left wing the CBC is, especially when there is a Liberal PM. When actually they are more like the CNN in their balance.

and there are state and local news outlets too.

News can be gotten for free over the air on radio and through a TV antenna.

And headlines can always be viewed online for free through many news aggregators.

I pay for Washington Post because I want to encourage more of their good journalism. And it's quite cheap if gotten through Amazon or if one is local and want the print version. I got rid of cable TV years ago because it's garbage.

Newspapers need money to survive, and a lot of newspapers are barely hanging on.

Enough people used to pay for hard copies of newspapers to keep them afloat, and digital subscriptions cost less than folks were paying a decade ago for hard copies.

If you value truth and the news, you should be willing to pay for it. Just pick one paper and you'll get enough news to be an informed citizen.

And yes, I realize that there are a lot of people for whom $10 or $11 a month is too much. There are options for them too, like disabling adblockers or getting their news from TV. But giving away news content is an even bigger barrier to democracy because the news sites would go under, or lay off so many people that our access to information would be severely compromised.

As it is, many large newspapers will offer a few days of free content when there is a public safety emergency such as a hurricane.

Nothing is free, really. The people who gather and publish the news have to live, too.

So, tell us what you do for a living and maybe we'll tell you we want to to do it for free, too.

Advertising is what pays for news; advertisers are attracted to newspapers by the NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO READ THEM. I've been working for newspapers for over 40 years, and the revenue is no longer there. The digital ad market is dominated by Facebook and Google and there is very little left for us.

The root of the problem is that people think that they deserve to have the news for free; they believe that journalists provide a public service and that the people who provide that service should not earn a living. Our newsrooms are dying; there are fewer and fewer people to cover the news, which means there is no one to cover the council and commission meetings where decisions about your tax dollars are made. You all whine and bitch and moan, yet you won't PAY FOR THE DAMN NEWS.

I particularly like the point you made about local meetings not getting covered. A lot of people are ignorant of how government works. I city (I live on the fringe and vote in the city races) recently had a mayoral and council race, the incumbent mayor was up for reelection. As I stood in line waiting for my ballot to print out on Election Day, I heard a guy in front of me asking when the Tax Collector would be up for re-election, apparently he wanted to vote against that person. I almost blurted out that the KEY person that he needed to hold accountable was on the ballot that day. I am sure that idiot voted for the incumbent mayor, one of the very people who set tax rates citywide, the Collector only recommends and collect taxes, that person here does not set rates.

Even though they find time to do everything else they want to do in life.

But then they get pissed off about the decisions that are made by the people who DO attend the meetings, telling us the system is "rigged."

Just because we need something urgently, doesn't mean the people who provide it should do it for free. In fact, the more urgently we need something the more we should be willing to pay qualified people so that we attract the best candidates.

Dr.s get way over paid.

In the last 10 years, I have had two Doctors. The first Doctor worked for an HMO which provided the office and office staff and nurses. The Doctor told me that he got paid $35 per patient seen. So if the first Doctor spent an average of 15 minutes max with each patient, at the end of eight working hours (assuming an hour for lunch and no break), he made $1,120 that day -assuming each patient required no more than 15 minutes, which is a big assumption. I was one of his easier ones because I was healthy and active, there were not a lot of diagnosis to be done or wellness plans to be individually crafted. In a year, assuming the first doctor pressed out a patient every 15 minutes, he grossed $291,200, pretty decent, but then he pays malpractice insurance, income taxes, association fees, referral fees. Yes, he makes a better living that Joe Smoo, the factory floor worker, but that comes with a lot of stress and uncertainty.

My current Doctor has to pay all of his office overhead out of the fee he charges me and other patients on a visit. If some bonehead waits until the last minute to cancel an appointment, then he loses that unless his office is lucky enough to get a call from a patient that can show up in place of the appointment that cancelled. A County Judge in my county by comparison makes $156,000 per year, the State and County pays for everything, so the salary is clear except for taxes.

There is a tendency for some to believe that some people are making out like bandits, the owner of the busy restaurant must be making a killing, or the business owner who is shipping lots of product must be making money hand over fist. When people that hold the view that some people automatically are making a killing are challenged, invariably it becomes clear that they really don't know a fucking thing about what they are speaking on. They have no clue about the myriad of things that say a business owner has to pay for and how margins can be thin, where one unexpected problem can be disastrous.

You gonna wrack up 300k in loans to work for 60k a year?

Might pay it off before you retire.

and medical school debt should be forgiven. Doctors here make a lot more than they do in Europe.

Because doctors' salaries aren't the reason health care costs are so high.

That argument is similar to the claims that evil trial lawyers and their "frivolous" lawsuits are the cause of high health care costs when malpractice awards have nothing to do with it.

affect healthcare costs by itself. But I am saying that a medical debt forgiveness program coupled with slightly lower compensation rates might put a small dent in costs. If we’re going to have universal coverage, we’re gonna have to lower costs from a bunch of different angles. But that’s a topic for another post.

other sources will pop up. Screw the NYTimes and their biased reporting for Trump.

National Public Radio, Politico, Democracy Now, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS.

Unfortunately too many people get their "news" from Facebook, Fox, and right wing radio. Those people have been brainwashed into thinking that the New York Times and Washington Post are liberal fake news. Even is they're free they won't read them.

OPEN the real news to those folks ... BLAST it out

to access it - just like they do now.

Why do you think you're entitled to have every single news outlet provide you a free service? Do you work or or provide goofs and services for free?

People post links that are created by professional journalists. They find ways to circumvent the paywalls, or do screenshots, or just do wholesale lifting of stories that they did not create, but which were created by people who sometimes risk life and limb. Next time you share somebody else's link to a news story, you are abetting theft.

Typically, if I am getting a free offer over the internet, I am skeptical.

do the kind of investigative reporting that we desperately need right now. Fake news gets around from funding from nefarious organizations or foreign governments pushing an agenda. Newspapers were cheap to buy in their prime, but now, they are dying because the digital age has eaten away their profit margins. I finally realized what a horrible world it would be without them, and I subscribed $10 a month to The Washington Post to do my part to keep these democratic cornerstone institutions alive. Please consider that our free press is weaker now financially, than it was during Watergate, and they are struggling to get by, let alone that they are also putting their lives at risk as they are not only threatened, but murdered by brutal governments.

is that too many people feel entitled to get their news for free and refuse to invest in the kind of journalism they claim to want.

If you don't want to pay for it, they need to take their asses to the nearest public library and read the papers for free. But they have no birthright to have news delivered to them in their homes, on their phones, on their tablets for free and on demand because they're too cheap to pay for it and too lazy to go where they can access it for free.

they want to read don't think twice about buying several bottles of wine per month, or several cases of beer, or several packs of cigarettes. It all is just a matter of people realizing that EVERYTHING IN LIFE COMES WITH A PRICE. They can pay for unbiased news, or let people like Adelson, Murdoch and others feed them lies and distortions. It boils down to what a person's priorities are.

I really appreciate the work they do and I could not in good conscience NOT pay.

I don't have cable TV - a much more expensive indulgence. I'd much rather support print journalism.

I also subscribe to my local newspaper, which is barely hanging on.

Online ads couldn't carry the weight even before ad blocker software and that along with plummeting print subscriptions killed most local news sources. Long gone are the days when the local paper was the go to source for local advertising. Businesses and classified advertisers have cheaper alternatives, so local papers have little of the pricing power they once had. Until we figure out a way for news organizations to pay the bills and at the same time provide broader access, paywalls are unfortunately a solution. Not an optimal solution, but a solution. The alternative is sites that flood so many ads they crash many people's browsers or bring their computers to a crawl. Again, not an optimal solution, but it is a solution. It's a damn tough situation with no easy fixes in sight.

.... you trust and subscribe to the online edition.

Make you watch an ad every few minutes, like Youtube. That way they can get the revenue necessary to pay their journalists, but not restrict access to those who are more in tune with reality.

Where you pay no ads, free lots of ads. Maybe the big places are afraid they couldn’t afford reporters as many might look for free.

and then be constantly let down when it turns out to be wrong.

But still charge for everything else.

I also encourage everyone to pay and get an online subscription to those publishers doing the most. I personally subscribe to the Washington Post and New York Times. The online only editions aren't all that expensive, and worth it to support courageous journalism fighting to save our democracy.

Newspapers are struggling to survive, and they've tried many different business models, few of which are viable.

i dont want their ads with all that adware and spyware . they can keep it. the ads are also the reason why the net is so slow . constantly refreshing themselves .

who insist the outlets provide MORE ad content so they can avoid paying a few bucks to access news

fucking paywall down. I can afford it, but won't even bother with a subscription.

He could write off the whole WaPo enterprise. He's a cheap boss toward all his employees.

The Sulzbergers can't do the same for the New York Times, since they owe Carlos Slim. I access it b/c I've had a paper subscription for 30 years.

On the other hand, I hope you can understand that we can't lump them all into patriotic service, since it does take readership money for some news sites to survive, and for journalists to make a living doing what they do for us. They can't just eat our gratitude.

of a sort. You get a few articles per month to read, which I do - along with Vanity Fair. I do subscribe to the WAPO, as the reporting just can't be beat, imo. Plus they have a great comment section I agree that Bezos is a tightwad for not allowing free access though. No reason to be greedy.

Print newspaper owners (or the families) were once the richest people in town (or the country for big papers like the NY Times or Washington Post). They were prominent fixtures on society gossip pages. NO ONE bitched about how rich they were and how they "owed" it to everyone else to provide news for free. Honestly, I suggest that you pick a paper that you like and pay for an online subscription, what you pay is a fraction of what people paid for print papers back in the day.

cold. I taught a little communications history in my day. I already pay online subscriptions, donate to Mother Jones and others, but thanks for the advice.

He's got an interest in journalism and influence, and he can definitely pay all his journalists top dollar, but if you think this is about readership support, you'd be mistaken.

Feel free to jump in with advice anytime, especially in support of the richest owners of algorithms and digital monopolism that are causing our economic shrinkage, not just 45's bad trade policy.

Lord knows Jeff must not cost us anything because our digital world is so cheap, right?

Spare me more pro-Bezos explanations. I'm entitled to my opinion.

Nothing in life is free, you pay one way or another.

Thanks for posting this because it is important.

I have tried to read yet paywalls block me. I do not have the money on disability to afford a subscription . Bug me Not was a wonderful resource for people like me who are made poor because of disability. I hate money.sooner we learn we don't need it to rule out lives the better.

No one is being deprived because they can't afford to access every single outlet that produces news.

That isn't what you want, is it?

Most can afford cover the little bit they charge.

It’s expensive to run a first-class news operation.

There are a lot of blogs and other ad-supported outlets that take their cues from mainstream sources. DU runs excerpts from important editorials and news articles.

Check with your local public library to see what news sources they offer digitally, too. I was Thrilled to learn that my county library system makes the New York Times and the Atlanta Journal Constitution free for patrons.

Last edited Sat Oct 5, 2019, 09:43 PM - Edit history (2)

If one is wanting exclusive content from a handful of pay news sites, well, I can understand that, but it doesn't mean there is no free access to legitimate news from, gosh, hundreds of sources. It's hardly worth an argument about it or a suggestion that that pay sites should be free.

All you have to do is search a bit to find them, and no problem.

There are aggregators like AP. The Guardian covers US news well, etc. Just search.