They want me to PAY!?

The rascals at the NY Times actually want me to pay for reading their online edition.

On one level I know this is perfectly reasonable. They went to a paywall system months ago but they allowed me free access until the end of the year because I already had an account (which you needed to comment, forward articles &c).

So why is every instinct telling me “it’s on the web, it should be free!” when I know better?

Is this a Catholic issue? Maybe you could call your bishop.

It’s the popular media section.

It is unreasonable because you shouldn’t have to pay for a completely biased news source that is filled with propaganda.

Minneapolis Star Tribune recently went to a pay system as well. You get to read something like 15 free articles per month, but anything over that, you must pay. Reading headlines is free. So I look at the headlines, and then I either go to the St. Paul paper and see if it is there (free) or google what interests me and see what comes up.

Many newspapers are heading towards a paywall, with full access to select articles and limited access to others. The Wall Street Journal and The Times (of London) are two examples. Some newspapers such as the New York Times and the Chicago Sun-Times will grant a limited number of free article views per month, and then require pay. Others will charge non-local residents for any access, such as the recently announced policy of the Winnipeg Free Press. As the WFP explained, the news content they produce costs them money and they believe their online articles have value.

During the past five years or so we had sort of a golden age of access to free news. But it couldn’t last. News outlets which produce news, as opposed to simply rewriting news reported by others, need to recoup their expenses.

Because you became used to it. You were getting it free so now there is the tendency to feel entitled to it. Ever hear the phrase, “Do somebody a favor once and it becomes your job.”

Personally I don’t see how you’re missing anything. Incredibly biased and they choose not to report on/ignore a lot of important stories.

I’m surprised it hadn’t come sooner, what with newspapers slowly losing the revenue they used to make.

And how do you think the people who write for papers survive? The web producers?

Go join the occupods

Welcome to the 21st century! Sooner or later, ALL major city newspapers will stop home delivery and go to internet subscriptions instead. :shrug:

Did you know that I get the Saint Paul paper delivered (Thurs, Fri, and Sunday) for $13/yr. That is .25 cents for 3 papers a week which includes the Sunday. :eek:There is no way that is even covering printing costs. I hope they are making that up in the advertising they get for the increased revenue.

Another reason the internet should never have been invented in the first place.People think because it is on the net they have a right to it being free??? This is a newspaper they would like to stay in business ,With that kind of attitude it is no wonder why especially the post office and newspapers will be a thing of the past .
Newspapers-why pay when I can read it for free online or find the info I want
post office -nobody writes letters anymore and the horror to have to pay to send an email ?They tried this already and didn’t work out .I don’t get people’s mentality at all they think everything should be free ???

I guess everyone is supposed to understand that , jobs being eliminated because of technology ???:shrug::mad::rolleyes:

Workers being replaced by technology has been ongoing since the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution… nothing new there.

But in the case of newspapers and other print media being displaced by online editions, I don’t think it is matter of employers replacing workers because of more efficient machines. What is happening currently is consumer-driven, with increasing public disinterest in print media. I don’t doubt that newspapers and magazines would have preferred to stick to their old and profitable market strategy. It just isn’t working anymore because their customers are going elsewhere.

It think the situation is more similar to the bankruptcy of chain stores which rent movies or sell books. The market is providing other alternatives which customers prefer. So newspapers are now scrambling to gain some of that online revenue so they can stay afloat.

I strongly recommend Netflixing the NYT docu “Page One,” which was inexplicably left off the list of Oscar nominees this year, as it may clear up misconceptions about those quote, unquote “rascals”: *“Unprecedented access to the New York Times newsroom yields a complex view of the transformation of a media landscape fraught with both peril and opportunity.” * I think it makes a great book-end to “Citizen Kane” (which was ostensibly a movie about the newspapers, also.)

You know who should pay?

George Soros.


Warren Buffett.

Warren Buffett just did pay (well, not for the NYT, but another newspaper.) Here’s the proof.

I understand where you’re coming from, Didymus! The internet does seem to train us to think that we should be able to access all of its limitless contents at no cost to us.

I am both surprised and not surprised. I know that there is obviously a cost involved in what they do so they need to be able to make money to continue doing it. But I am somewhat surprised that this would be the best means to go about doing it. There are other ways to make money on the internet besides directly charging your site visitors. It seems to me that charging a subscription is just going to encourage even more people to get their news from blogs instead.

I’m sure they have people working there that know a lot more about these sorts of things than I do, though, and they probably considered many different options. :shrug:

That might be the initial impulse of many persons. However blogs, like Wikipedia, are only as reliable as their sources. To the extent that the blog cannot cite an accessible news source, the credibility is diminished.

I think you are right there is a real possibility of an online subscription causing loss of online audience, as well as physical subscriptions. That is why newspapers have been very gingerly approaching this solution. But you can bet that every major newspaper which currently doesn’t charge for online access will be monitoring the outcome of those which do make the changeover.

The success of The Times (of London), the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have encouraged second tier newspapers to follow suit. Whether less prestigious newspapers can make the pay model work, I think, remains to be seen.

People need to eat. Stuff on the internet does not just appear automagically - someone has to produce it and put it out there. Those people - real live human beings - have families to raise, bills to pay, and mouths to feed.

Nothing in life is free - I’m shocked that people actually think that some things are or should be.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit