|
New York Times considering charging for online content
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 14 May, 2009
Following media mogul Rupert Murdoch's note that he may begin charging for online content for all newspapers in his empire, the New York Times has begun floating the same idea.
The Times has been hit particularly hard by the global recession as well as the decline in ad revenue for traditional media, and over the past five years has seen its stock price drop 90 percent. Currently, the ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. May 2009 @ 03:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
You can do that if you want less people reading it online, put in more ads, forced 5 second adds between pages is better than being forced to pay 60$ a year for 1 fcking site..... now if it was 5-10$ a year and I gave a damn I could pay it.... but 99% of the time each site wants 30-70$ a year..... which is to much for web content.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
varnull
Suspended permanently
|
14. May 2009 @ 04:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
chicago tribune is free XD
|
|
Lothros
Junior Member
|
14. May 2009 @ 05:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
As is the BBC (and it will always will be as it is funded by UK Taxes). I know all you Yanks might not like going to a British site (and you will be denied a little bit of video content, boo hoo), but the BBC is the only Company I know who is required by law to actually be impartial. After all, Fox recently Proved it's not against the law to lie about the news. After that, I'd seriously not trust anything I read from a US site, even one as reputable as the times.
|
|
iamgq
Junior Member
|
14. May 2009 @ 06:05 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Lothros:
As is the BBC (and it will always will be as it is funded by UK Taxes). I know all you Yanks might not like going to a British site (and you will be denied a little bit of video content, boo hoo), but the BBC is the only Company I know who is required by law to actually be impartial. After all, Fox recently Proved it's not against the law to lie about the news. After that, I'd seriously not trust anything I read from a US site, even one as reputable as the times.
You Yanks? Did you crawl out of a cave or something? Havent heard that in years hahahahhaaaaaa. MARDY ITS THE FLUX CAPACITER! I live in Europe by the way.
Anyways why would anyone from Europe read U.S news at a daily baisis? I give a d@mn what happens in the North or South Pole.
Jounalist put some work in to their work, they need to eat just like us and its a cent they worked for.
|
|
SProdigy
Senior Member
5 product reviews
|
14. May 2009 @ 12:06 |
Link to this message
|
Media can spin things however they want. For example:
In a "X" poll, "Media Outlet A" reports that 50% of people said the glass is half empty.
In the same "X" poll, "Media Outlet B" reports that 50% of people said the glass is half full.
See my point?
Beyond that, there is something called the Associated Press, and outside of local news, most stories are pulled from the AP. The only difference from paper to paper may be the editing of said article. Perhaps Paper A has 4 inches to devote to the story while Paper B has a different/larger AP photo and can only fit 3 inches of the story.
HOWEVER... online, this is typically not the case, and you can grab many of the AP stories from MSNBC.com, FOX, CNN, etc. If you tune to your local newscast on TV (or DVR it) there's not an entire need for the physical paper anymore. I can even get my local classified section online for FREE nowadays.
|
Newbie
|
14. May 2009 @ 12:11 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Following media mogul Rubert Murdoch's note
Surely it is Rupert Murdoch lol
|
|
tefarko
Junior Member
|
14. May 2009 @ 12:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
good luck for them... I even stay away from sites that require logging and some other personal info...
|
Staff Member
4 product reviews
|
14. May 2009 @ 14:51 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Quote:
Following media mogul Rubert Murdoch's note
Surely it is Rupert Murdoch lol
Indeed, Mr. Murdoch would not have been happy with my typo. Edited ;)
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. May 2009 @ 16:42 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Lothros:
As is the BBC (and it will always will be as it is funded by UK Taxes). I know all you Yanks might not like going to a British site (and you will be denied a little bit of video content, boo hoo), but the BBC is the only Company I know who is required by law to actually be impartial. After all, Fox recently Proved it's not against the law to lie about the news. After that, I'd seriously not trust anything I read from a US site, even one as reputable as the times.
To true to true.
Quote:
Lothros (Newbie) 14 May 2009 2:30 _
As is the BBC (and it will always will be as it is funded by UK Taxes). I know all you Yanks might not like going to a British site (and you will be denied a little bit of video content, boo hoo), but the BBC is the only Company I know who is required by law to actually be impartial. After all, Fox recently Proved it's not against the law to lie about the news. After that, I'd seriously not trust anything I read from a US site, even one as reputable as the times.
News is news US news is rich in fake reactions and placid entertainment the BBC is still a bit more hard newish even those little by little its jumping on the fou news bandwagon...
Quote:
Quote:
Following media mogul Rubert Murdoch's note
Surely it is Rupert Murdoch lol
Duncha mean Ruarrrgggert Murdoch.
:P
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. May 2009 @ 16:43
|
|
varnull
Suspended permanently
|
14. May 2009 @ 16:54 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Lothros:
As is the BBC (and it will always will be as it is funded by UK Taxes). I know all you Yanks might not like going to a British site (and you will be denied a little bit of video content, boo hoo), but the BBC is the only Company I know who is required by law to actually be impartial. After all, Fox recently Proved it's not against the law to lie about the news. After that, I'd seriously not trust anything I read from a US site, even one as reputable as the times.
WRONG .. I am forced to pay £145 a year to the BBC under penalty of being criminalised for not having a "license" to have a tv in the house.
It's not a tax on income.. it is a blanket tax paid to a private company per household.. unfair and unjust. Even if I decide to never watch bbc programs or channels I still have to pay them to watch the advertising paid free to air channels.. Is that right? NO .. is there a bloody thing we can do about it?.. NO.. it's a disgrace.
The bbc are a state censored mouthpiece3.. if you lived in the UK you would know that the only way to find out what goes on here you need to watch euronews or sky news... the bbc can't be trusted.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Lothros
Junior Member
|
14. May 2009 @ 18:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ok, Euronews, yes. Sky News, No. Sky news = Fox News with smarter sounding anchors
|
