3 ms·
I personally never read articles of FT nor WSJ - I don't even try to "click" on those links/references as I know that I won't be able to read them => I'll never
by zepearl 6y ago
I personally never read articles of FT nor WSJ - I don't even try to "click" on those links/references as I know that I won't be able to read them => I'll never have any chance to "understand" if I would like to subscribe to those newspapers :(
- swiley 6y agoWSJ has ads doesn’t it?
- searchableguy 6y agoThere are some free ones. Try their wirecard reporting. I find it pretty interesting. Wirecard and me: Dan McCrum on exposing a criminal enterprise: https://www.ft.com/content/745e34a1-0ca7-432c-b062-950c20e41f03 https://www.ft.com/content/745e34a1-0ca7-432c-b062-950c20e41...
- zepearl 6y agoThank you - but the ones that a freely available aren't marked in the headlines (e.g. "free"), or am I overlooking something?
- samizdis 6y agoQuite a few FT articles are free to read, and many others paywalled on the site are often syndicated to other, non-paywalled sites. A DDG search on the headline will often return such results. (I try, when submitting an FT article, to find a syndicated version as well and to post a link to it in comments immediately after submitting.) Alternatively, and depending on your views about copyright etc, you can submit the article's url to archive.is - which will either return anything already "archived", or try to fetch it for you.
- zepearl 6y agoThanks :) I didn't know "archive.is" => interesting/nice! Still, I think that in the case of well-known newspapers I probably won't try to work around their policies (difficult to explain the reason as I'm not sure myself about the "why" - maybe a mix of ethics and other stuff specific to newspapers).