Free News

The New York Times ran an article Can Papers End the Free Ride Online?

Consumers are willing to spend millions of dollars on the Web when it comes to music services like iTunes and gaming sites like Xbox Live. But when it comes to online news, they are happy to read it but loath to pay for it.

I've got news for them. Most of the music that is downloaded is pirated, and if was not for the pirated music I don't think Pay Download services would have ever gotten started

Newspaper Web sites have been so popular that at some newspapers, including The New York Times, the number of people who read the paper online now surpasses the number who buy the print edition.

I don't think the NYT or any paper has ALL of the material that goes into the print edition online, and if they do, I would guarantee them that people that want to read the entire NYT are not going to do it online.

..... As a result, nearly a decade after newspapers began building and showcasing their Web sites, one of the most vexing questions in newspaper economics endures: should publishers charge for Web news, knowing that they may drive readers away and into the arms of the competition?

If they do, that is what is going to happen


Of the nation's 1,456 daily newspapers, only one national paper, The Wall Street Journal, which is published by Dow Jones & Company, and about 40 small dailies charge readers to use their Web sites. Other papers charge for either online access to portions of their content or offer online subscribers additional features.

The Journal has some of its opinion stuff online for free, and that is all I access. My local paper, the Tulsa World, charges for most of its stuff, and because of that I don't even read the free stuff


The New York Times on the Web, which is owned by The New York Times Company, has been considering charging for years and is expected to make an announcement soon about its plans.

WashingtonMonthly said whichever newspaper makes this jump first is going to lose out in a big way. If suddenly I have to pay to read the New York Times online, and can't just *ahem* find the password somewhere, then it's not a big deal. I'll just go read the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times and KnightRidder and get my liberal media fix. There's not that much of a difference that I so desperately need the Times.

But suppose the move is inevitable. Betsy Newmark thinks subscriber fees would "put a crimp in political blogging." Perhaps. But then again, perhaps this could all work out in a way that actually improve political blogging. What if the daily news was subscriber-only, but all the news archives were free and open to internet users everywhere? Blogging, it seems, could certainly benefit from slowing things down a bit and doing more commenting on week-old or month-old political stories. And sure, a few big bloggers and institutions would no doubt still buy subscriptions and do "insta-updates" with off-the-cuff commentary, but the rest of us would have to do a bit more thoughtful analysis/research/reporting and a bit less hyperactive mouse-clicking and "breaking" updates. That sounds fine to me!

Dan Gillmor said there's a consequence for newpapers that go behind what Doc Searls and others call a "pay-wall" -- a loss of Web presence in a world where being absent from the Web is, for many younger readers, like not being anywhere at all.

Vidar Hokstad said The moment they require payment, I'll stay away permanently - the number of news sources available to me makes news a cheap commodity, and I don't value their opinion pieces and other unique content enough to pay. Fewer eyeballs for their ads, less presence in search engines, less relevance, in a time where staying relevant and visible makes the difference between setting agenda and being ignored. It's bizarre then, that this comes at a time when New York Times has become blog friendly, letting anyone
create a registration free link to refer to them from their blogs.

James Joyner said The WSJ is unique because the business content they provide is critical to those who make their money in the stock market, who can often write off the cost of their subscriptions as a business expense. It's unclear how other papers would manage the same trick, unless they banded together and did it on their own. The proliferation of blogs and news aggregators like GoogleNews and YahooNews make it even easier to find papers who put their content up for "free."

If they do begin charging, I suspect blogs will increase in popularity as a place to go for free news.