Would You Pay To Read An Online Newspaper?

  • 1
    89.68% (2320 votes)
    No
  • 2
    10.32% (267 votes)
    Yes

Statistics

Votes: 2587
Views: 3644

Popular tags

Leave comment

Comments

  1. badcowboy said on Aug 13 2009, 21:08 PM:

    If the online paper had local content and was actually reporters reporting on stories, I would.

  2. Dwight E. Howell said on Aug 13 2009, 18:08 PM:

    You got Fox and the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party. I'm not paying for either.

  3. TerryL said on Aug 13 2009, 13:08 PM:

    With so many free papers (funded through advertising) and even the big papers getting most of their revenue through advertising why does Murdock expect me to pay for content that is covered by the income from advertising? Yes it cost to gather news (if only they would these days) and the advertising has gone on-line, then they should go on-line and get a slice of the revenue there. They should also use the web and it's reach to improve their efficiency at the gathering process.

  4. ecoshift said on Aug 13 2009, 12:08 PM:

    I pay for the local news hard copy, but I read it online. I also pay for the WSJ online edition. I value professional reporting. I also value citizen participation such as blogs, email lists, facebook, etc. to keep the media honest.

  5. Elf said on Aug 13 2009, 12:08 PM:

    Why would I pay for the Reuters/AP feed wrapped in advertising and a plutocratic agenda?

  6. Brad Eleven said on Aug 13 2009, 11:08 AM:

    I _almost_ paid for the New York Times 10+ years ago when it was first coming online, but I didn't, and eventually they opened up. I'll never, ever pay for online news, ads or not. Heh, my CAPTCHA is "AILES encrypts". That'll be the day.

  7. chris said on Aug 13 2009, 11:08 AM:

    information is free and now in the hands of the masses, goodbye dinosaurs.

  8. Cephus said on Aug 13 2009, 10:08 AM:

    Why pay for biased content when there are so many free sources out there? I don't trust the majority of media sources farther than I can throw them, they don't report the news, they shape it to conform to their particular political agenda. So long as the media outlets are unable to just give us the facts and only the facts, they have no earned my money.

  9. Mary D said on Aug 13 2009, 10:08 AM:

    I might pay to read the local news, but not any of the rest. And it would have to be very inexpensive. (I voted no)

  10. Phydeau said on Aug 13 2009, 09:08 AM:

    I voted yes. Who's going to pay the salaries of the reporters? It has to come from somewhere. There is no free lunch. You want free, you'll get exactly what you paid for.

  11. JettaPup said on Aug 13 2009, 08:08 AM:

    Won't pay as long as the BBC or other more neutral site still has content

  12. Joe M said on Aug 13 2009, 08:08 AM:

    The horse is already out of the gate on this one. They better find some alternative before they go the way of the buggy whip.

  13. Alfred1 said on Aug 13 2009, 07:08 AM:

    I already subscribe to the Wall Street Journal. I would not pay for "state media," I require my news be factual, not spin.