Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Media Businesses The Almighty Buck News

Ask Slashdot: What Online News Is Worth Paying For? 361

Posted by Soulskill
from the pennies-on-the-page dept.
schnell writes "The increasing prevalence of online news paywalls and 'nag walls' (e.g. you can only read so many articles per month) has forced me to divide those websites into two categories: those that offer content that is unique or good enough to pay for vs. those that don't. Examples of the former for me included The Economist and Foreign Policy, while other previous favorite sites The New York Times and even my hometown Seattle Times have lost my online readership entirely. I also have a secret third category — sites that don't currently pay/nag wall, but I would pay for if I had to — Ars Technica and Long Form come to mind. What news/aggregation sites are other Slashdotters out there willing to pay for, and why? What sites that don't charge today would you pay for if you had to? Or, knowing this crowd, are the majority just opposed to paying for any web news content on principle?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ask Slashdot: What Online News Is Worth Paying For?

Comments Filter:
  • 50 cent (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @05:11AM (#46160555)

    I get most of my news from the state funded TV network's news section of their web site. The abount I pay for this in taxes comes down to approximately $ 0.5 per day.

    • Re:50 cent (Score:5, Informative)

      by Chrisq (894406) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @05:17AM (#46160593)

      I get most of my news from the state funded TV network's news section of their web site. The abount I pay for this in taxes comes down to approximately $ 0.5 per day.

      Same here; BBC news and BBC website!

    • Re:50 cent (Score:5, Interesting)

      by flyneye (84093) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @06:57AM (#46160929) Homepage

      I object to the implication that I am supposed to pay for all the bullshit and propaganda funnelled in through my senses, since I have to spend the time and memory to sort any sort of useful truth out of it, dont forget the ads. My time is worth money; far more money than any stinking newsclown I can think of. THEY SHOULD PAY ME to intake their particular brand. I want my money and I want it NOW!!!
      Until then I will kick off my shoes, air my dirty socks and comment on whatever unpleasant thing crosses my mind, searching for kindred spirits.
      Pay me, I will be more polite.

    • by MightyYar (622222)

      Yes, master.

    • Content Depth. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jellomizer (103300) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @09:23AM (#46161885)

      Sites like the Economist, Foreign Policy, and even the Wall Street Journal (At least pre News Corp). Are sites that give focused information into a particular area. You are getting information that it hard to get elsewhere.
      The Times, or your local papers tend to be less indepth and that means you can find the same information almost anywhere.

      • Re:Content Depth. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by usuallylost (2468686) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @10:37AM (#46162605)

        Good point about the distinction between in depth coverage of some specific topic area that has value and general coverage. Especially since so much of the general coverage now days is repackaging the same AP articles in every news paper in America. I can't see a valid reason to pay for the online edition of my local paper when 90% of their content comes from the AP and is basically identical to what every other paper in America has. So to me the question is whether they generate sufficiently unique content that is of a high enough value to justify me expending money on it. So far I haven't found any sites like that. Doesn't mean that they don't exist I simply haven't found any site where I can't get essentially the same information for free someplace else.

  • LWN (Score:5, Informative)

    by BESTouff (531293) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @05:12AM (#46160559)
    http://lwn.net/ [lwn.net] is the only news source I'm paying for.
  • Online Propaganda (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) <obsessivemathsfreakNO@SPAMeircom.net> on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @05:18AM (#46160599) Homepage Journal

    Why should I pay for content that amounts to Propaganda, supporting increasingly corrupted civic institutions and companies, all against my own interest. And this is even more my eyeballs are the product being sold to advertisers.

    Why should I pay one penny for a word of this?

  • Wikipedia (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Camembert (2891457) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @05:26AM (#46160623)
    It is not really a news site, but I would pay for wikipedia if paywalled. I did voluntary pay a bit, twice. It is in general very useful for me. Otherwise perhaps occasionaly for an in depth article by a repute dpublisher (even then, max. $2), but not a subscription.
    • It is not really a news site, but I would pay for wikipedia if paywalled. I did voluntary pay a bit, twice. It is in general very useful for me.
      Otherwise perhaps occasionaly for an in depth article by a repute dpublisher (even then, max. $2), but not a subscription.

      I, too have coughed up cash for Wikipedia. I'd actually pay google, but if they billed me per-search, I'd go bankrupt quickly. Happily, they're selling me to all and sundry so I don't have to.

      I'm inclined to the communistic approach to pay-for-content. Wikipedia got a lot more than $2 from me (more than once). But my ability to pay for stuff goes up and down with the economy and, if anything, my need for some of that same stuff goes up when the economy goes down. I figure it averages out.

      Subscription models

      • by gbjbaanb (229885)

        Try DuckDuckGo instead of Google.

        As for microtransactions, I dislike them too - but I think this is one area where the bitcoins (or rather a better one that's more "inflationary" like dogecoin) can find a niche. I understand Reddit uses dogecoins quite happily as "tips" [tech-recipes.com] as that currency is deigned to generate coins to encourage spending rather than hoarding. As a result, people actually spend them on little things.... like articles you appreciated.

    • Re:Wikipedia (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tylikcat (1578365) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @07:31AM (#46161087)

      *blink* I just realized I didn't give wikipedia my annual donation. (Clicks over and fixes that.)

      Thanks.

  • by GeekWithAKnife (2717871) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @05:26AM (#46160633)

    I for one will be happy to pay for in-depth, impartial analysis that takes complex matters and explains them to me simply.

    There are enough people out there interested in different things, there's a market there, somewhere. Regardless of that I'm sure most people are sick and tired of tabloids, newspapers with a political agendas and media moguls pushing their views.

    I'll pay if you empower me with no BS knowledge and thus a real chance of understanding. Ask me, the potential buyer what I care about, what I'd like to know about and what I do not care for.

    Information should be free, instead of asking how you can charge for information maybe you should consider how to monetize transferring free information? wait a moment that's call an ISP. Tax the ISP? -do you see where this is going?

    So far we've all been reading what we like for free on the internet, what will your pay service do better? can you demonstrate you're giving me, the reader better value over "free!"? -if you cannot answer that question you should not bother with a pay wall. If you tax at the ISP level and they transfer costs to the customers then customer will move.

    So really, what information is not easily accessible to the masses, without passes and logins? high quality research, specialist and niche information. Essentially the sort that has a very low readership and cannot fund itself on ad revenues. Someone will pay for that.
    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      I for one will be happy to pay for in-depth, impartial analysis that takes complex matters and explains them to me simply.

      And without bias? When you find it, let me know. Tell everyone else, too. We've all been searching for that mythical city since time was time.

    • by ggpauly (263626)
    • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

      I for one will be happy to pay for in-depth, impartial analysis that takes complex matters and explains them to me simply.

      The problem is that many topics are not simple, and explaining them simply does not give you a fair or impartial analysis or the tools necessary to make informed judgements.

    • by ultranova (717540)

      I for one will be happy to pay for in-depth, impartial analysis that takes complex matters and explains them to me simply.

      42.

      You can send payment to this Bitcoin address:

      1GZVi3MQsorsF3fUc9NYD2g6yw86fDtGD5

  • Paid by advertising (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @05:26AM (#46160635)

    I do not run an ad blocker, and I am fairly tolerant of adverts alongside my news. I will continue reading a site even if the entire sidebar is flashing animated gifs at me.

    That is my payment.

    I do block flash content, because ads with sound step over the line, and I will stop visiting a site that loads keyword ads in the text of an article, but almost anything else I consider to be a fair condition for free access to content.

    • I do not run an ad blocker, and I am fairly tolerant of adverts alongside my news. I will continue reading a site even if the entire sidebar is flashing animated gifs at me.

      That is my payment.

      I do block flash content, because ads with sound step over the line, and I will stop visiting a site that loads keyword ads in the text of an article, but almost anything else I consider to be a fair condition for free access to content.

      Welcome to the club!

    • I do not run an ad blocker, and I am fairly tolerant of adverts alongside my news. I will continue reading a site even if the entire sidebar is flashing animated gifs at me.

      That is my payment.

      You haven't paid a nickel until your willingness to tolerate the advertising seeps into your psyche in such a way that causes you to behave differently in how you participate in the economy to the advantage of those who generated the advertisement stream.

      Ads function on at least four levels. The first is to create dir

      • There's a fifth level for ads. They create a background awareness such that when the demand does materialize, and you are presented an array of choices to satisfy the demand, you pick the advertised thing, simply because it seems most familiar. This is, in fact, one of the more powerful impacts of advertising.

      • by ultranova (717540) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @08:43AM (#46161583)

        You haven't paid a nickel until your willingness to tolerate the advertising seeps into your psyche in such a way that causes you to behave differently in how you participate in the economy to the advantage of those who generated the advertisement stream.

        That is incorrect. The payment you make to the site you browse is a chance to be influenced. The site thus gains an opportunity to influence you, which they sell forward to the advertizers. Whether these advertizers succeed or fail in their attempt to use their opportunity is their problem, not yours. Either way you've paid.

        Think of it as selling options. The option might end up being worth something, or it might not. But even if it ends up worthless, the seller still delivered his end of the bargain.

      • "You haven't paid a nickel until your willingness to tolerate the advertising seeps..."

        Nope. His time is worth money as well. Since he knows the ads dance, he occasionally looks at them. If he allows the ads, the company gets the revenue. If he doesn't, they don't. He's paid.
  • by artor3 (1344997) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @05:32AM (#46160653)

    The submitter may not think its worth it, but I've been happy with my online subscription. I like the periodic long form articles going in depth on topics that I often find interesting, the opinion articles where they actually invite several people with different view points to present their own argument (without just yelling at each other), and the general news coverage which usually doesn't get too caught up in the petty cable news fodder. (The "missing white girl of the week" stories.)

    Plus I am absolutely addicted to their Numberplay feature.

    But more important than any specific site, I think its important to pay for news. Research isn't free, and if we don't pay for it, who will? Remember -- who ever pays for it gets to decide what goes in. I don't want that to be the government, nor do I want it to be some rich "benefactor" with an agenda to push. Sure, we can get stuff like the Snowden leaks for free, but we need journalists like those at the Guardian to pore over the data and find the juicy bits. I don't trust random bloggers to do so, because the signal would get lost in the noise, and most of us don't have time to do it ourselves.

    • by djmurdoch (306849)

      if we don't pay for it, who will?

      Advertisers?

      who ever pays for it gets to decide what goes in

      You said you pay for the NYT. Do they let you determine what articles to include? Only to the extent that if they do a bad job, you won't renew your subscription. If advertisers were paying, the same would be true: they won't get eyeballs if they don't have content that attracts them.

    • by argStyopa (232550)

      Apparently you're not reading enough news, if you think the NYT doesn't have an agenda to push.

      If you don't notice it, you probably just agree with it.

    • by jratcliffe (208809) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @07:58AM (#46161239)

      Remember -- who ever pays for it gets to decide what goes in. I don't want that to be the government, nor do I want it to be some rich "benefactor" with an agenda to push. Sure, we can get stuff like the Snowden leaks for free, but we need journalists like those at the Guardian to pore over the data and find the juicy bits.

      You realize, of course, that those Guardian journalists work for the Guardian, which is funded by a trust created by a wealthy man, for the purpose of ensuring that the Guardian stayed to the editorial course he had laid out. So, it's EXACTLY a case of a publication with a "rich "benefactor" with an agenda to push."

      • by Ash Vince (602485) * on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @09:08AM (#46161769) Journal

        Remember -- who ever pays for it gets to decide what goes in. I don't want that to be the government, nor do I want it to be some rich "benefactor" with an agenda to push. Sure, we can get stuff like the Snowden leaks for free, but we need journalists like those at the Guardian to pore over the data and find the juicy bits.

        You realize, of course, that those Guardian journalists work for the Guardian, which is funded by a trust created by a wealthy man, for the purpose of ensuring that the Guardian stayed to the editorial course he had laid out. So, it's EXACTLY a case of a publication with a "rich "benefactor" with an agenda to push."

        It would be good to mention that the rich benefactor in question has been pushing up daisies for the better part of a century and so has become a bit "hands off" :)

        Nowadays how the Guardian covers news and what agenda it pushes is largely determined by the journalists themselves and the editor.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]

  • The Guardian (Score:5, Insightful)

    by raketman11 (807813) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @05:37AM (#46160675) Homepage
    The Guardian to give them financial support to keep real journalism going.
    • Re:The Guardian (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dataxtream (1292440) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @07:13AM (#46161005)
      Agreed. They are the only mainstream media to support Edward Snowden and are withstanding a fierce backlash from the UK government. If we cannot fight for our freedom then we should at least support those that do.
    • by gbjbaanb (229885)

      unfortunately the Guardian has quite a bias towards the left. If that's your thing then go for it, but if you're looking for unbiased its probably not the best.

      If you're really looking for unbiased, I'd get 2 opposing papers and try to read the same story delivered by both - if you read the Guardian and the Daily Mail, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

      Or just go with the FT, which may not cover your story much at all, but the ones it does will be plainly factual.

      • If you're really looking for unbiased, I'd get 2 opposing papers and try to read the same story delivered by both - if you read the Guardian and the Daily Mail, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

        i'd suggest the telegraph as a counter to the guardian, the daily mail is just a paper for cunts

        snake

      • by gsslay (807818) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @08:50AM (#46161635)

        if you read the Guardian and the Daily Mail, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

        Let me represent that graphically for you

        Left - Guardian - - - - - - - - - - Truth - - - - - - - - - - - Right - - Bigotry - - - Lies - - Daily Mail

  • None (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rodrigoandrade (713371) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @05:46AM (#46160703)
    I find it hilarious that news corps expect me to pay them to access their sites, when all they do is sit on their asses copying/pasting shit from AP, Reuters, or Bloomberg (for financial news) like everyone else does. No wonder many news outlets (both online and in print) are tanking.

    If they expect me to pay, I expect them to bring me some original, exclusive news coverage/articles that's not easily found elsewhere for free.
    • Re:None (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @06:28AM (#46160831)

      That's why I love Fox News. They report things you won't see *anywhere* else. Because they just make shit up.

    • by Kjella (173770)

      I find it hilarious that news corps expect me to pay them to access their sites, when all they do is sit on their asses copying/pasting shit from AP, Reuters, or Bloomberg (for financial news) like everyone else does. No wonder many news outlets (both online and in print) are tanking. If they expect me to pay, I expect them to bring me some original, exclusive news coverage/articles that's not easily found elsewhere for free.

      One of our big national newspapers here in Norway recently put up a nagwall at 8 articles/week, though not every article seems to be count but since there's no clear indication this has lead me to only read what I can't get at the other 3-4 sites that usually carry the same mix of news. Even when it's not copy-pasta "breaking events" tend to be exactly the same, the number of unique in-depth articles is very low. Between home and work and smartphone (unique IPs) 24/week is plenty.

      • by Splab (574204)

        A couple of Danish newspapers are doing the same. Just install Ghost incognito addon for chrome, hit that ghost when you get tagged by a paywall, chrome will then automatically switch to incognito when you visit those sites, clears out most paywalls.

    • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

      Most of them do provide original content. Unfortunately it's just opinion piece bullshit masquerading as news or an investigation.

      Investigations cost money. When the news is broken the source that broke it gets some exposure, but since everyone else reports it as well it is hardly exclusive any more.

    • by wiredog (43288)

      all they do is sit on their asses copying/pasting shit from AP, Reuters, or Bloomberg
      And just how do you think the Associated Press, United Press, and Bloomberg get their funding?

    • by ultranova (717540)

      If they expect me to pay, I expect them to bring me some original, exclusive news coverage/articles that's not easily found elsewhere for free.

      It's impossible to to bring exclusive news coverage because let's face it: if an event is important to anyone at all, someone's live-tweeting it.

      Newspapers as mere reporting devices are going to die. They can't compete with the Internet rumour mill. What they could do is go back to doing actual journalism: analyze the meaning behind events, reasons behind decisions,

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @05:57AM (#46160735)

    JUST STOP THAT FUCKING THING.
    NOW!
    Or is nobody out there listening to what the users are saying??

  • BBC (Score:5, Informative)

    by Hypotensive (2836435) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @06:21AM (#46160817)
    In the UK we already pay for the BBC through taxes. So we might as well use it.
    • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

      It's not a tax, it isn't mandatory. If you don't receive broadcast TV signals or stream live TV you don't need a TV license.

  • While it's not a news site, among other things it provides thoughtful analysis of current affairs and cultural trends. Some of it is available for free, but subscribing gives you access to all content, current and past. It's not light reading, but Vishnu knows we have more than enough of that the Web.
  • A bunch of reporters in my home country decided to create a no-ad publishing site, where they publish their own in-depth investigation articles. They need € 60 / yr / reader to stay afloat. I happily donate to these aficionados of free speech. By wiring the money in from my bank account. I refuse to use credit cards on the internet, and refuse to pay for any pay-walled site. The free offers are vast and diverse enough.
  • Radio, streamed or OTA, like the BBC World Service and NPR, are all I need for breaking news. For depth, when wanted, I'll research it myself.

    I'm not even remotely interested in the crappola that passes for main-stream media these days.

  • Slashdot! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by herve_masson (104332) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @06:40AM (#46160875)

    I would pay for a slashdot version with >80% of articles about technology :)

    • by coofercat (719737)

      I'm amazed it took so long for someone to mention /. My first thought when reading this was "please do our market research for us".

      I wouldn't pay for /. as it stands. I come here for 'infotainment', which I can happily get elsewhere, although maybe not in such a succinct form. /. lacks any really grab-you-off-your-chair news that I can't possibly live without, and lacks the editorial quality to ensure that the normal float of news is well curated. /. is a news aggregator, and so will never 'break' news as s

    • by Nimey (114278)

      And some actual by-Cthulhu editing and fact-checking.

  • by jellie (949898) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @06:43AM (#46160881)

    I pay for the NYT, Ars, and The Economist, although the last 2 really aren't newspapers. Why does everyone here hate "paywalls"? Running a newsroom is extremely expensive. From the beat reporters and copy editors all the way up to the editorial board, plus all the foreign bureaus with their own reporters, a "real" newspaper needs to support a ton of people. I'm also a huge fan of investigative reporting, which you rarely ever see outside of major newspapers because the paper and the reporters must invest a huge amount of time and money.

    Aggregation sites are nothing like a real newspaper. But at least Ars Technica has a large amount of original content (including their great feature articles), instead of resorting to Huffington Post-style click generation with "articles" that summarize someone else's hard work.

    • by kthreadd (1558445)

      Not everyone here hate paywalls. But those who do will be much more vocal than those who don't.

      • Not everyone here hate paywalls. But those who do will be much more vocal than those who don't.

        A lot of it isn't so much paywalls as it is fear that the Internet will end up sliced and diced with toll booths every other site. Like "net neutrality", that would convert a lot of free association into having to strategise your use based on financial considerations. We've already demonstrated that people self-limit themselves to their own detriment without forcing more limits on them. And, of course, it puts an additional chill on one of the www's greatest strengths: hyperlinking into a truly world-wide w

    • Paywalls are fine for regular subscribers, but if you're just after 1 article, they are a nuisance at best and a rip-off at worst. Nag walls would be better; I can get that article I'm after and I might still be enticed to subscribe for more. Perhaps that's where the hate comes from: these days people don't read 1 or 2 newspapers, but get their news from a wide variety of sources, sometimes through links sent by their friends or posted in online discussions. It is not unreasonable to ask money for such c
    • I will second the economist. It takes me about a week to get though the in-depth articles, which for me is a better use of my time then plowing though daily updates of most issues. Plus the subscription comes with a podcast of the magazine. That for me is worth the price of subscription.

      I have some issues with news aggregateors and free sites. They do headline news well but they do a poor job on the long form articles.

    • by aaarrrgggh (9205)

      My paywall hate is the fact that the quality of the material presented does not correlate to the "cost" of registering. Out of habit, I go to SFGate often enough, but the quality is simply junk: there might be two news articles on the front page, and a bunch of human interest slide shows... for the people that can't read? I also read Seattle PI for a while, until they started doing goofy things with hijacking the browser. There are several others that come and go, but quite frankly I have no interests

  • America's Finest News Source
  • I currently do pay for The Economist.

    I would pay for the New York Times as well if they provided cheaper pricing options. I wouldn't mind paying $10 a month to read 30 articles of my choice, but I don't like having to take a full subscription just to access the handful of content which interests me.

  • by rossdee (243626) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @07:12AM (#46161001)

    I'm not the one paying

  • by JanneM (7445) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @07:19AM (#46161031) Homepage

    We get the digital Asahi Shimbun. It gets us all editions of the full paper, including a browsable, zoomable PDF copy of the morning paper edition, at a price slightly lower than the paper edition cost us earlier.

    The reason is mostly convenience: I and my wife can both access the website and the iPad and Android apps at the same time, through the same subscription. With the paper we'd get only a single copy, so I'd end up bringing yesterdays evening paper on the train in the mornings while she'd read the morning edition.

    • by Nimey (114278)

      My local paper's doing the browsable, etc. PDF online version for subs too. I won't use the thing because there's no reason to make me skip several pages to read the rest of a story just because that's how they had to lay it out in the physical medium. Browsers != newspapers.

      The really stupid thing with that is I'm a subscriber, get the physical copy, but their normal HTML page doesn't let me see more than 5 or 10 pages a month... unless I block Javascript from a certain domain, which I do.

  • 'nuff said.
  • Also, the Economist.

    In the if-they-want-me-to-pay-I-will-dept I would put the Guardian. At least I think it is worth supporting their journalists.

  • Sadly, I know about none online news. All I can see is online opinion.

  • We get the Sunday Washington Post, which includes a free subscription to their website that can be shared with a second person. The coupons we get more than pay for the cost of the subscription, and I get the Sunday comics to read...on Saturday. My wife also checks the ads for sales on stuff we'll need soon. The newspaper itself goes right in the recycling bin, unfortunately. (Side note: this tells me there's a market for a service of just delivering coupons like the papers do, but it would make more mo
  • by nbauman (624611) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @08:25AM (#46161443) Homepage Journal

    Until Rupert Murdoch took it over.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12... [nytimes.com]

    Under Murdoch, Tilting Rightward at The Journal
    By DAVID CARR
    Published: December 13, 2009

    Mr. Baker, a neoconservative columnist of acute political views, has been especially active in managing coverage in Washington, creating significant grumbling, if not resistance, from the staff there. Reporters say the coverage of the Obama administration is reflexively critical, the health care debate is generally framed in terms of costs rather than benefits — “health care reform” is a generally forbidden phrase — and global warming skeptics have gotten a steady ride. (Of course, objectivity is in the eyes of the reader.)

    The pro-business, antigovernment shift in the news pages has broken into plain view in the last year. On Aug. 12, a fairly straight down the middle front page article on President Obama’s management style ended up with the provocative headline, “A President as Micromanager: How Much Detail Is Enough?” The original article included a contrast between President Jimmy Carter’s tendency to go deep in the weeds of every issue with President George W. Bush’s predilection for minimal involvement, according to someone who saw the draft. By the time the article ran, it included only the swipe at Mr. Carter.

    Accurate, objective, well-selected reporting that I can depend on is easily worth $200.

    Propaganda isn't worth the time wasted.

    I still subscribe to Science magazine.

  • Well, information wants to be free however, when someone is selling it to me it ceases to be worth anything more than an advertisment.
  • For NYT it is very easy.

    You can clear your history after you hit their paywall block or you can just view in Privacy mode and then close the tab once you're hitting the paywall.

    Then open a new tab and try again and it will work.

    NYT does tracking using cookies and what should you do with cookies ? Eat them!
  • I subscribe to the Economist and the New Republic, make donations to NPR and ProPublica, but as far as electronic only sources, I haven't felt inclined to purchase any so far. And, quite frankly, I don't see this changing in the near future. Once micropayments are integrated into news sites, though, I will gladly pay an amount if I like the story. I have no qualms of clicking a button and sending $0.50-$2 for a very well done, in-depth story that I appreciate, but this feature just isn't there.

    I want to su
  • Clearly the post-Taco Slashdot falls in the second category.

  • There does not seem to be a shred of unbiased, agenda-free news out there. Some would argue there has never been such. But these days, it seems to be far less than when I was younger. The consolidation of news business is more than bad enough. That government is attempting to define "news media" is worse because people are tiring of the clearly-tainted news sources and are seeking out alternatives to attempt to balance what they hear.

    Even the sheeple are beginning to see that there is something wrong wi

  • Consumer reports (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Charliemopps (1157495) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @09:17AM (#46161819)

    Not exactly "News" but the only website subscription I've ever felt it worth paying was Consumer Reports. It pays for itself many times over every time I buy an appliance. It may sound lame, but my Vacuum cleaner has lasted 10 years... our dishwasher is insanely quiet... Our LCD TV has a better picture than my brother-in-laws $5000 sony and it cost us $700. Then we get into the automotive section and the sites likely saved me tens of thousands. For $20/year it's well worth it.

  • Stratfor (Score:4, Informative)

    by Phoenix666 (184391) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @09:50AM (#46162125)

    I used to pay for Stratfor online. I found they have generally the most insightful information on international affairs. For example, their coverage of the Russian natural gas pipeline embargo on the Ukraine a decade ago and the repercussions it had for energy policy downstream in Germany and Central Europe was extremely important for understanding the sea change it caused. Germany's Energiewende is a direct result of that event. No other news source in the world then or since really understood the immense ramifications.

  • by T.E.D. (34228) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @10:05AM (#46162263)

    If you mean an upfront paywall, the answer is none. The entire concept of the WWW is the synergy everyone gets sharing and linking to free content. It makes every participant far more valuable than they would be alone. Any attempt to put up artificial walls around a particular bit of content violates the entire social contract the Web operates on. You are making everyone else's content less valuable, and are inconveniencing every visitor, simply for your own personal financial gain. Essentially, you are sabotaging the Web.

    This is why people get pissed off at paywalls, even though they can't necessarily find the words to explain it.

    Now I realize folks have to eat, and the social contract of the Web doesn't mesh very well with a lot of old information brokers' steam-press era business models. Tough. Find a way to adapt, or go out of business. Your choice.

    Back in the day, they used to say that the price of newspapers only covered the cost of delivery. Ads paid for the actual salaries of the folks generating the content. Delivery on the web is essentially free to the content producers now. If your grandfathers could figure out how to pay for the rest with advertising, I bet you can too.

  • by coldsalmon (946941) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @10:34AM (#46162557)

    I pay for The Economist not only for what it contains, but for what it lacks. There are no cat videos, no "top ten differences between men and women," no pop science fad of the day. I stopped reading the NYT because it has too much fluff, and their web design makes it difficult to find the substantive articles. Plus their "most emailed" list is just full of horrible clickbait which disappoints me every time. Really the NYT's sensationalist science/health fad reporting was enough to drive me elsewhere by itself; it made me stop trusting them as a reliable source. I know that The Economist is biased, but they are obviously biased in a particular way, not randomly careless. If I want the other side of the coin, I will read the New Yorker and the NYRB.

    Also, I like the weekly format because it gives the journalists more time to write something thoughtful. As Chesterton put it:
    "The tendency of all that is printed and much that is spoken to-day is to be, in the only true sense, behind the times. It is because it is always in a hurry that it is always too late. Give an ordinary man a day to write an article, and he will remember the things he has really heard latest; and may even, in the last glory of the sunset, begin to think of what he thinks himself. Give him an hour to write it, and he will think of the nearest text-book on the topic, and make the best mosaic he may out of classical quotations and old authorities. Give him ten minutes to write it and he will run screaming for refuge to the old nursery where he learnt his stalest proverbs, or the old school where he learnt his stalest politics. The quicker goes the journalist the slower go his thoughts. The result is the newspaper of our time, which every day can be delivered earlier and earlier, and which, every day, is less worth delivering at all."

  • by Bill_the_Engineer (772575) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @11:41AM (#46163217)

    They seem more balanced and go into more depth than the for-profits. Conservatives complain that its state sponsored liberal propaganda and liberals complain that they are becoming too conservative and caving to the right. I take this as a sign that they are doing something right.

    They do so much more than news and I don't feel like I'm paying for someone to cut-and-paste AP news feeds like the other guys.

Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.

Working...