Sunday, March 01, 2009

Saving The News

The Los Angeles Times' David Lazarus thinks newspapers can, and should, charge readers for their online content. That might be the only way they'll survive.

I suppose I agree but have to wonder how much I would be willing to pay versus how much they end up charging? It also begs the question of what changes would have to be made in the blogosphere as we wouldn't be able to casually post links to newspaper web sites anymore. That could be a problem.


2 Comments:

At 8:49 AM, Blogger AJ said...

I can hear the historians now... "Newspapers thrived as a commercial enterprise for 400 years until they met their demise in the early 21st century because publishers thought it would be a really neat idea for their reporters to work without remuneration."

I'm sure Douglas Adams would have said it better.

I'd look for newspapers, particularly is mostly non-competitive regions such as ours, to restrict their websites to paying customers. Open their extensive news archives to subscribers. Make the website an added service for subscribers, not a taken-for-granted utility for freegans.

Putting a red rope around news websites won't save newspapers, but it will help slow the blood loss.

 
At 1:56 PM, Blogger The Boy Most Likely to ... said...

ESPN.com has most of its website free.

However, there is an Insider option, which if you pay a fee, allows you access to articles written by some of ESPN's more notable contributors.

It's a model that has been in place for nearly a decade. I will not be surprised if other media outlets follow the same model in the future.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home