First the Globe and Mail, now the Toronto Star erecting paywalls.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

"Toronto Star will launch a paid-subscription program in 2013 for full access to all the stories and features on our website, thestar.com.
In Canada, the Globe and Mail started charging up to $20 a month for full access to its online content effective last Monday. Also, four newspapers owned by Postmedia Network Canada Corp., namely the National Post, Ottawa Citizen, Vancouver Province and Vancouver Sun, all started asking readers in August to pay for online content. Postmedia announced last week that the remaining papers in its chain will ask readers to pay for online content, starting in the new year."

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1278881--the-star-to-launch-digital-subscription

I guess, once one paper starts doing it, they all get a free pass to gouge their markets. Shame. I figured I'd start reading the Star more often since G&M went Über greedy. Looks like the CBC will be getting a surge in readers and commenters. Maybe someone will figure out a paywall-crack soon like was done for the NYtimes (If anyone hears of such a tool, please post in this group and let us know!) Be DAMNED if I ever had to rely on Sun Media for reliable info!

[pnwmom]

1. Is it really gouging? I'm torn about this because we just had a major newspaper

shut down a couple years ago. I think they deserve to be paid as much as anyone else who does an important job. Those of us who don't pay anything are freeloading off everybody else. There should be a way to keep them in business that would work both for them and for potential customers.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

3. Its complicated, but I still think its gouging-creep.

The G&M was considered a somewhat credible paper, despite an ongoing decline into neo-con spin. The best part of it was the comment sections which were usually dominated by liberal thinkers, and independent fact checkers. I think there will be an exodus of those types, many of whom were planning to switch to the Toronto Star.

This is a missed opportunity for the Star to massively increase its readership. (And anyway, isn't online advertising constantly being touted as some fabulous revenue tool? Maybe it's all smoke and mirrors too.) The Globe is making a fool of itself, because it considers itself in the same league as the NY Times, or WSJ..... which it aint.

My home town paper (which is a small media market; 130,000 residents) had a family owned newspaper that changed hands multiple times in the 1990s and finally ended up being owned by Sun Media (AKA Fox news North). But that was before the Internet, and due to mismanagement and exploding print costs. So its lamentable no matter how you look it.

The only upside is maybe there will be an uptick in Canadian Indi-media, blogs and forums that up until now have been pretty anemic.

[CanSocDem]

5. I agree.

But then again, for the last 3 decades it's been more about getting a 'byline' than it is about getting a story. Opinions have become more important than news.

For some strange reason, people are willing to pay money to hear or read other peoples opinions. Now they want to charge us for our opinions...???

My only hope is that they'll let me hang around here for awhile, without a star.

.

[TrogL]

2. I get five newspapers where I am

Globe and Mail
Edmonton Journal
Edmonton Sun
National Post

As noted above, the Sun and the Post are owned by the same people and have mostly the same content - right wing crap. They can't even be used for birdcage paper because they won't absorb any more.

The Journal is a bit better, but not by much. They have a daily free paper that's not too bad.

The Globe and Mail is the best of the lot for national news, but tends to be Toronto-centric. I only pick it up if something important is going on. I certainly wouldn't pay for the pay-wall.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

4. It is my understanding too

that if you log on to G&M to comment, they will be bombarding your email address with spam, nagging for $20 bucks from you. So it looks like it will be a new Guerrilla-mail account for me when I wish to comment there.

[shockedcanadian]

6. I like to read a broad spectrum of news sources

Last edited Wed Oct 31, 2012, 08:27 AM - Edit history (1)

So these new paywall systems will affect my personal exposure. It seems to me this is the business model that the online papers need to take and if it generates a healthy source of revenue and if it helps maintain their advertising dollars all the power to them. They have a right to earn income and support their business just as any other outlet does, it is an extremely competitive marketplace.

Ultimately the market will determine if it is a feasible model. I just think that many people, especially the "younger" generation (say age 25 and under) are exposed to so many different viewpoints and sources that the mainstream papers have a tough hill to climb to generate brand loyalty. There is a very jaded bunch growing into the workforce. I would have thought that a free paper with a forced five second ad for each article or something would generate enough advertising income rather than a monthly subscription fee.

As for the comment about the Sun, in general yes it is a rag, but too many of the other papers are also becoming rags in their own right. For instance, how often have you read an article in say the Life section of an online paper only to read a particular brand being pushed in the example. I forget the term people are using, but these articles are well crafted advertisements...a smart advertising and branding strategy, but not impressive for those who prefer honest and objective "reporting".

[JBoy]

7. I used to read Globe & Vancouver Sun on-line,

now both behind the wall.

In the last week or two I've switched to CBC and Huffington Post, along with NEWS1130 (a local news radio station's website) for purely local news.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

8. ya, CBC and Huffpo-Can will get more of my clicks.

I think I'll be judicious with my 20 pages per month and only use them when I can join the comment section and skewer conservatives with a dozen+ comments for that particular article.

Toronto Star is sad, but I always thought it was a bit too Toronto-centric, despite actually having some good investigative writers. I'm hoping that there will be a concerted effort to rally Canadians behind alternative news sources. BUT sady, we all loose out when we are talking in partisan vacuums, while those who can afford free speech marginalize the rest of us.

Huff post has some good journalism, but also a shitload of sensational crap.

I wish CBC wasn't so bland, p-c safe, and chickenshit scared of Harper. Because a federally funded news outlet is becoming one of our only mainstream info and discussion outlets. We need a Canadian forum with the level of participation of DU. (Many start up, sputter, flounder and vanish.)