Home > Opinion > John A. Farrell > New York Times, Other Newspapers Should Charge for Online News Content

New York Times, Other Newspapers Should Charge for Online News Content

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Why stop with there? There's a whole lot of us 'parasites' doing our banking online these days. We need to keep tellers at the actual banks employed somehow, so lets charge online bankers 15 cents a day. There's a whole lot of us 'parasites' who find it more convenient to send an e-mail than mailing a letter. Not fair to the folks paying for stamps? lets charge e-mail users 15 cents a day. I could on and on listing 'sensible' ways to charge us 'parasites', but what makes more sense, and what our civilization demands, is to join us 'parasites' in accepting and embracing new technology. If continuing to live in the past with newspapers & typewriters is your way of moving foward, go ahead. But I'm not paying you 'clowns' 15 cents a day to do it.

Jason of CA 7:18AM February 10, 2009

I'd do that.
lots of turmoil in the "news" business but eventually what we're getting to is valuation of content. I don't think people will pay for "blather" that they can get for "free" - paradoxically on their exorbitantly-priced cable...
so we have to pay for ACCESS to info and then again for content. Cool!

LarryG of VA 4:12AM February 10, 2009

Ads are ads, kids. Pop-ups online or printed on paper. Deal with it!

C Bond of NJ 11:53PM February 09, 2009

1) All major information Web sites should charge for their content, not just newspaper sites. CNN, Fox News, MSNBC all have journalists to pay, too. When credible news has value, then only worthless information will be free.
2) News organizations must take back The Associated Press -- founded as a cooperative so members could share STAFF PRODUCED content. The temptation to sell AP content to Yahoo, Google, et al, goes against the founding principle of the co-op. If Yahho and Google want to buy the news, let them also pay to produce some.
http://KenCarpenter.com

Ken Carpenter of FL 11:28PM February 09, 2009

Not but an hour ago, I said to my husband the next 'gimmick' to get your money would be to charge to access blogs and web-sites. Of course this would include all news media sites as well.
Then I'm wondering when Google and the rest of the servers who allow 'free blogging' will get the notion to charge us to 'blog'.
After that, will the post office decide to shut down or raise it's fees; even require an annual subscription so you can get your mail?
Will the banks only allow electronic transfers; bills to be paid by the wizardry of the computer?
Will your I-net provider decide to increase the rates (as ours just was)?
Will we get charged for every e-mail we send over a certain quota?
Will we all get sick and tired of paying to read someone else's opinion, rather than using our own minds and getting on with life without all the input and propaganda?
Heck, I live next to an Indian reservation; I'm thinking of going back to smoke signals.
Most of us would be a lot better off without the 'bad news bears' in any form!
If newspapers want to do a service, they can disseminate VALUABLE INFORMATION on how to cope with a economic recession; give information on what people are doing to SURVIVE - give nothing but local assistance to people who are SEEKING THE TRUTH AND AID - if this was on the front-page, and the CONTENT WAS VALUABLE, I'd start taking a newspaper again!
I haven't paid for a newspaper since 1982; from that time until now, I've found enough of them tossed in public dumpsters; thrown into the trash-cans outside retail stores. The only time I use a newspaper is when I need to wrap up something to send in a parcel; then I head up to the local market where all the 'freebies' are, and take a bundle home.
As for coupons; advertising, etc., there's no such thing as a NEWSpaper; it's full of crap that urges us to spend our money.
One time I trimmed out the LA Times and saved only the news; I was able to bring it down to the size of a small pile of clippings - 85% of it was trashed. I sent the articles to the LA Times and told them what I thought of their 'advertising tabloid'.....
Finally, as a journalism major with big plans to really contribute to the community, I learned quickly that's not the goal and purpose of ANY newspaper in a town OVER 5,000 people.
A friend of mine still pubishes the Climax Crescent in Michigan; a town of 2,000 people who GLADLY pay for that paper because he HELPS THEM WITH POSITIVE INFORMATION; he is known in the community, and carries on the work of 2 other men who came before him.
For the tiny town newspaper, I will pay when the publisher lives in the same community; cares about the community and serves the community.
Other than that, shove it!

Diane of CA 9:40PM February 09, 2009

Most of us with at least a high school education KNOW that the NY Times, Newsday, and countless other media schills are merely the propaganda organ of the Democrats, aka Leftist/Socialist establisment. We don't buy their paper editions, so why should we pay to read their garbage online? Doesn't the Constitution guarantee the freedom of the press, or, more precisely, freedom FROM the Press (i.e. paper newspapers) in today's world? You can't have it both ways, yet these wonderful Socialist capitalists want us to PAY to read their stuff online? Get a grip!

ChristmasTree of NY 8:41PM February 09, 2009

Yes the NYT and other newspapers should start charging. Let's see have fast they can sink to the bottom there too. It is no wonder why the dumocrats want a "fairness doctrine" in place. NPR, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and all the other liberal medias don't like the fact that Fox is in existence. Oh lets not forget that Michael Savage and Rushbo are the reason for their fear. Maybe they will just take over the net and limit all information like China or Russia. Hey, it could happen!

Jeff of WI 7:02PM February 09, 2009

I think the web retired that business model some time ago. If the NY Times started charging, I'd simply delete their bookmark and move to a free outlet, like the BBC perhaps, or TV broadcast news.
In theory, there are enormous savings from migrating to the web. No paper, printing, distribution costs, so why aren't newspapers migrating and making tons of money from the savings? Maybe they aren't as clever as Google. Maybe the web advertising model doesn't work for newspapers. That's the market place. Things change. Theda Bara and Rudolph Valentino don't make the transition to talkies.

Luther of IL 4:05PM February 09, 2009

...but only for the last newspaper left standing.

rcjordan of NC 3:47PM February 09, 2009

Well, a lot of things go to the way side these days due to tough economic times. If you want us to pay up for your personal views, then put it in the daily fish wrap. I use mine to line the garbage can with, because quite frankly, that's all it's worth. Or maybe, you should find another line of work that actually pays you for physical labor for a change. I'm tired of seeing so many trees being wasted, no I'm not an environmentalist or a tree hugger, we waste so much these days, including band with on the internet for idiots like you.

Dan of CA 2:24PM February 09, 2009