2 ms·
I actually agree with you that the paywall will fail. Trying to get a lot of people to pay a set amount for news will yield less money than getting a limited nu
by natrius 16y ago
I actually agree with you that the paywall will fail. Trying to get a lot of people to pay a set amount for news will yield less money than getting a limited number of people to donate an unlimited amount for news; that is, non-profit journalism. The latter is the most likely endgame, and being a part of it is pretty interesting.
http://www.texastribune.org http://www.texastribune.org
If you agree that the New York Times creates value, I don't understand why you're hesitant to support them as you mentioned in your initial comment.
- thunk 16y agoWell, I'll borrow your phrase: They're charging people to see ads. They can have it one way or the other, but not both. It's the same reason I can't abide advertisments at the movie theater. The value that the Times creates is a little like free food in Vegas. The food may be wholesome and nutritious, but there's an alterior motive, and charging standard rates for it would yield less money for the casino in the long run. Also, that the paywall kicks in only for the most devoted readers really turns me off. As far as non-profit journalism, I'm all for it. I would absolutely donate to a news outfit I felt was fighting the good fight. NP-journalism is forward-thinking. My only concern is that journalists' integrity not be compromised by their patron's agenda. But I suppose it couldn't be any worse than the current situation, right? Assurance contract-like (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contract http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contract) group funding of journalism is another interesting idea. Free-agency, decentralization, online markets for stories, and ads are my view of journalism's most likely future.