It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will you pay to access your daily news?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Following Rupert Murdoch's decision to put a 'pay wall' up in front of the online editions to the Times and Sunday Times for reader access, the respective editions have actually seen a drop in market share since the initial decision to make registration compulsory.

Media revenue is in sharp downfall, thanks largely to the global economic climate. Whatever our views on Murdoch's media empire, he knows how to turn a buck and I wonder if we will see other notable newspapers follow suit?

Journalism is expensive and will you pay to keep abreast of current events or look to blogs and other online media outlets?

Background article




posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
That depends, will it be fair, unbiased, without an agenda? No? Same old situation? Then count me out. There's a sucker born every minute....



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Theres no way in HELL I would ever pay for MSM. Local news? Hell no.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Zomar
Theres no way in HELL I would ever pay for MSM. Local news? Hell no.



How about the Naked News?



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by The_Zomar
Theres no way in HELL I would ever pay for MSM. Local news? Hell no.



How about the Naked News?


oh hell ya id pay for that. never underestimate the power of a b**er.
fill in the blanks if you will



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
If I wanted to keep hearing how worthless I was, while living in fear and giving everything to the king...I would stayed living at my Dad's place.

Personally I am not interested in paying for pharmacology commercials called news.


CX

posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I would never pay for mainstream news, not when i know that half of it is spun to suit certain agendas.

If it ever came to being compulsory, wether that be online or on tv, i would just stop watching it. Simple.

There's always the radio.

CX.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Nope would not pay......NEVER!

Have not bought a newspaper for 2 years, do not like the smell of them lol....



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Thats the point. Who would shell out to know the news? media blackout? well its as good as.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Nope...and until they regulate the internet with extreme, I won't have to. And there is no way that a communicative tool as the internet will accept shackles.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by LarryLove
Following Rupert Murdoch's decision to put a 'pay wall' up in front of the online editions to the Times and Sunday Times for reader access, the respective editions have actually seen a drop in market share since the initial decision to make registration compulsory.

Media revenue is in sharp downfall, thanks largely to the global economic climate. Whatever our views on Murdoch's media empire, he knows how to turn a buck and I wonder if we will see other notable newspapers follow suit?

Journalism is expensive and will you pay to keep abreast of current events or look to blogs and other online media outlets?

Background article


I'm confused at your post. Murdoch puts up pay wall, readership declines but then you ask if we think others will follow his lead because he knows how to turn a buck? If this trend continues, I think we'll see him take the pay wall down.. advertisers don't like declining readership trends, and I bet he makes more off of the advertisers than he does off of the subscriptions.

Edit to answer your other question: No, I will not pay to view advertisements along with articles... there are plenty of free sources to do that elsewhere.



[edit on 4/7/2010 by Iamonlyhuman]



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by LarryLove
 
Not a chance. I don't buy his papers, watch his channels or give a rat's ass about his profit margins. He's backing a fading business model.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Will I pay for my daily NEWS ?

I will pay for my daily news IF i feel it is worth "MONEY".

Is news today worth money????

And if it is not worth money... How could it be worth money????

How about if news broadcasters started wearing,,,, Yeah you get the point.

Hmm I wonder what news would be worth MONEY. As in hard earned from physical labor.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Starred. That statement coupled with the Patrick Stewart picture just made my day.



In reply to the OP if Rupert Murdoch wasn't involved I might consider it. If I do decide to pay I'll just post all the articles on ATS for folks to read anyway.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I think most people are already 'paying' to access their daily news, but aren't realizing it. These corporations that control the dissemination of news are very adept at bundling it with other services and then slowly (or perhaps not so slowly) increasing the cost over time.

Most people are already paying their cable or phone company to get "Internet" and other media services, right? This may be the primary way folks get information now (whether it is through email, browing, twittering, texting, social media, or other handheld devices).

With mobile device apps and other services that charge on a per-view or per-application install, we really are already paying and paving the way for more of this to be thrust on us all. Not only are advertisers paying to get to us, but they're making us pay to see their full package!

You can go to libraries and browse Internet and news sites for 'free', but our taxes are already paying for this access. In a sense, we are all funding the channels of communication that only pollute our thinking further with advertising and pay-per-view items.

It is a certainty that news will continue to be put into 'packages' that entice us to pay some small amount for unrestricted access/viewing, and more and more we'll see this as a simple and easy way to 'only get what we want' (making it appear that it's our choice alone for what we view). This is a similar concept to how grocery stores work - put certain items in locations where we will see them and believe we're making the choice when in fact statistics and positioning are in play to get the most consumer bang for the buck. Our choice of what news we 'subscribe' to and what is discussed is based on many corporations vying for our attention and using the means of communication that entice the most amount of people into their little scheme.

This is a slippery slope since we're essentially double paying for everything - we pay for the transport mechanism, which includes taxes that fund much of what we get anyhow, and then we're paying the corporations that control the packaging of these news bytes.

We are all trapped. The bundles (like meals at MCDonalds) are priced too well to ignore/avoid, and we "consume" these things at peril of losing our sanity and reason while we pollute our senses with the junk that only addicts us further.

The solution is to disconnect entirely from the deals, the steals, and the instant gratification of jumping into the rabbit hole that advertisers and corporations need - making us think we want/need/must have their latest spin on stuff, and will pay anything, even insignificant amounts for. Initially it may appear free or nearly so, but it never is.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join