Google ‘newspaper’ in their search News section for story after story of the death of this mode of communication. And, Rupert Murdoch is going to start charging to read the online version of another of his newspapers just like he promised. That should work, right?
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 5821 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Nope! Online nuespapers suck. They will always suck. The internet has destroyed the model for big news papers anyway. Small local ones have an edge now.
It seems to me like the only real subscribers to newspaper services are those who would rather not read on a screen. I can’t see an online model working, for those in the online-know, there’s already a ton of sources out there.
Where I live there are no relevant dailies and local rag is useless.
If necessary I can get my news from television and or CNN. But I will not pay for it on-line.
First they want me to start paying for my free plastic garbage bags and now they want to do away with the bird cage liner?
What’s next, international corporations? What’s next, you bloodsuckers?
I think the Daily Show’s visit to the NY Times is pretty accurate. If newspapers want to survive they need to be worth paying for.
When people talk about why newspapers are great and why they should survive they always bring out the NYTimes. When my university started giving out free copies I read them and I can’t figure out what is so great about it. People talk about investigative journalism and such but is that every day? I doubt it. People also talk about the depth you get in the paper vs. tv news. Maybe I’m just shallow. Maybe I’m just have too short of an attention span but it is a very rare story that I want much more detail than the headline and perhaps the first couple paragraphs. More depth is not always needed or a good thing. I’m a grad student in the humanities and I have a BA in English so it isn’t like a don’t read things in depth or that I don’t like to read. I just don’t see the appeal of newspapers or why they need to be saved.
It just seems like all the good things people people point as evidence of newspaper’s greatness are in section A. So why are they publishing anything else? Why do newspapers even bother to cover yesterday’s sports? Is anyone buying it for their sports coverage?
I know the true answer is that the other sections of the paper are filler for ads but that’s not a good reason for me to spend my money or time on it.
My home town newspaper has only been once a week at least as long as I’ve been alive (30+ years) and I don’t see people complaining about how my home town is suffering. Maybe it is ok if newspapers aren’t daily.
No and No! The only person I personally know that still buys the paper is my 78 yr old neighbor. Yes, her VCR still blinks 12:00 over and over and this new fangled deeteevee thing killed her soaps.
Nor do I watch or read websites of the like of MSNBC, FOX, CNN or any other “infotainment” TV for retards.
i just get the fri-sat-sun newspaper for the coupons. and thats only in the sunday paper but i make up the cost of the subscription easily with those coupons….
I just love this old photo taken of the Brockton Enterprise newspaper office. http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2178251635/ Now that was up to the minute news back in the day. Not my day, but somebody’s day.
I would only pay for a local newspaper, with only local writers, who eat sleep and drink in the same town I do.
Nope. I subscribed to PC Mag for years before they converted it to all digital. I tried the online version but it was too clumsy so I just gave up. Too bad, it was a great publication (I turned to the Dvorak columns first, hee hee.) They should have just raised the price on the print version to something that would have made them viable. Now they don’t get my money.
Why pay for something that is not, really reliable?
I would contend, the appeasing of advertisers instead of satisfying readers need for truth, is what has damaged the credibility of newspapers and reduced their sells.
With all that is going on to effect me as a voter, in government, business … , I get little to no useful information from news casts or newspapers in general.
60 minutes is the only useful show that on “occasion” provides useful documentaries or information.
Newspapers have focused on providing entertainment rather then hard news.
Why should I pay for advertiser supported entertainment?
The newspaper model is broken. Me throwing money at it won’t fix it.
They should have done this sooner. If you had the choice between going out for steak and paying $50, or staying in and getting the same steak for free, which would you choose?
Looking at Napster, and the fear of not getting the internet, led the papers to give away their product. Wall Street Journal charged money from the beginning, and they don’t have the same problems.
Back in March I signed up for a free 60-day trial subscription to my local paper. It’s now mid-August and the paper is still being delivered, and I haven’t been charged anything.
I wonder why newspapers are losing money.
I do the Sudoku, read the business section and throw the rest in the recycling bin.
I’d rather pay for the news than have goofball blogger control the information. Most of those guys just make crap up.
No.
I bought a Kindle in March. I have mixed feelings about it, especially since Amazon went into people’s personal Kindles and deleted two books that had been purchased. Nonetheless, I like it for a couple of reasons, and dislike it for others. It will NEVER replace books. It offers several newspapers. I tried a few, and hated them all. No, I will never read a paper again, in any form. They just offend me.
A paper newspaper has some value after it’s been read. Think about use as a drop cloth while painting, cleaning fish, and so forth. It’s not just the news. Some free newspapers have information that isn’t found in subscription papers.
Of course, a Murdoch paper (or TV channel) is so biased that it’s no longer useful for news. My wife watches American Idol when it’s on, and that’s about it.
If we don’t read the news, either on paper or online, how will we know, for example, when our government is trying to do things that affect us?
Take the impending health care legislation as just one example. How will you know what’s being proposed and then implemented? Are you willing to wait until stuff is signed into law before finding out about it?
In order to know this information you must have a news source. In order to have a news source there must be people to gather the information, analyze it, then write about it. Then comes the people who publish it, either online or on paper. What about the related costs like a building to house these people, presses; paper and ink, or servers, routers and internet connections? They all cost money! Where will that money come from?
I see two options. First is advertisers alone. Clearly that never has and never will be enough. So subscribers and/or one-off buyers are needed. That’s you and me people!
So as I see it, we either pay for our news or we won’t get any reliable, independent news. And when that day arrives we shall all be worse off for it, regardless of whether you think so or not!
Why the difference in percentages from question to question? 10% of approx 1000 votes would not pay to read an online paper vs. 34% of 700+ who are now paying for an online paper!
This is just a screwy poll in the first place, the questions should have been posed at least a day a part.
American news print is going the way of GM. GM thought that it could sell crap as long as it “branded” it as quality.
News print is doing the same; trying to sell us crap and “brand” it as important to our democracy.
Unfortunately, because of the quality of mainstream news, Americans have opted for “other” sources of news, Glen Beck, etc …
I am not sure if there is any way back from our current state.
Now, Rupert Murdoch, Washington, Wall Street and others are giving America the choice of buying crap on not having the option of buying crap. Either way, it’s crap.
I would pay $39.95/month for an online subscription to 200 magazines and newspapers of my choice. This would also include all the publications’ archives. I wouldn’t mind the advertising.
However, all these publications need to change their format to accommodate the dimensions and shape of the computer screen upon which they are being read.
I buy the paper for the coupons. They are worth the cost in savings. I read the news online though.
Your poll software is so web 1.0
I wouldnt pay for news, but i would and do pay for opinion and digest.
#3 It seems to me like the only real subscribers to newspaper services are those who would rather not read on a screen. I can’t see an online model working, for those in the online-know, there’s already a ton of sources out there.
-This. I don’t like to read extensively on a screen. If I wanted to, I could find it free.
But –
#4 If necessary I can get my news from television
-OMG, nooooooo.
I think that if we want to stay informed, we have to pay for news.
Whether we watch it on TV, listen to radio, or buy a print copy, they are highly subsidized by advertising.
The people who gather and write the news are entitled to make a living too.
not on your life. way too many free sites and other ways to get the news.
Newspapers suck! They print old shit I read online 3 days before.
I get the Sunday NYTimes, which also allows the advert-less Times Reader to display the daily newspaper in a larger-type, clutter-free fashion.
News will always be free. as soon as papers and media companies start charging for web access, a market will be created for free news which will attract websites that will make big bucks selling advertising based on the huge numbers of visitors looking for “free” news sites.
Obama is going to shut down all private media anyway and just have a federally funded state media. wait a minute, isnt that what PBS and NPR is?