Rupert Murdoch To Charge For On-Line News

[lib2DaBone]

The Standard-Times in New Bedford, Mass., began putting some of its content behind a pay wall this week, the first community paper owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. to charge for online news...

In an announcement, Standard-Times Publisher Mary Harrington said the charge was a result of a change in the business model for newspapers, “and we need to change to reflect that.”

The paper allows free access to international and national news and up to 10 local stories a month. Beyond that, only a lead paragraph is displayed, along with a prompt to subscribe to online content.



http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/01/murdoch-community-paper-erects-pay-wall.html

[cliffordu]

1. Heh. Good luck with that....

:rofl:

[Sherman A1]

5. +1

Yup!

[Joe the Liberal]

2. Only the dumbest of the dumb will actually pay for that propaganda.....

you have to be pretty stupid to fall for Murdoch's propaganda but to actually PAY for it is just a whole different level of idiocy.

[SergeStorms]

7. Murdoch knows his audience........

so yes, it WILL appeal to a certain segment of the population who will be stupid enough to pay for his "fair and balanced" reporting. :rofl:

This is the same segment of the population that has their vehicles covered with various patriotic magnetic "ribbons" (made in China) and who can boast of having at least one Earnest Angley Official Prayer Cloth in their possession. ;)

They're no that bright, but they can be counted on to keep the wolf away from Rupert's door.

[Quantess]

3. It might work for the Wall Street Journal

but that's about it.

[KharmaTrain]

4. Sure Worked Well For The New York Times...Not

Putting material behind a firewall was a PR and economic disaster for the Times and the small number of subscribers didn't cover the expenses and the loss of open access meant fewer links. If there was a big story or OP/ED, it'd end up copied anyway with the Times getting nothing. It also drove down website traffic...one of the few ways these companies can make money off their websites.

Those who hide behind walls are rarely heard, but since it's a Murdoch fishwrap, no great loss.

[regnaD kciN]

6. True, but...

...I suspect we're not too far away from the time when all newspapers will do that -- they're finding that the web ad revenue isn't enough to cover losses in their print version (part of which losses is caused by people not subscribing or buying the paper, figuring they can get the same content on-line. As that happens more and more, papers are going to have to charge for on-line content or fold altogether. Sure, when the NYT did it, people just switched to another major paper that didn't charge, but when such alternatives aren't available anymore, the choice will be between paying and doing without.