Yeah...this is going to work out well...

[El Mudo]

NewsCorp to begin charging to view online content (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8186701.stm)

Mr Murdoch said he was "satisfied" that the company could produce "significant revenues from the sale of digital delivery of newspaper content".

"The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive methods of distribution," he added.

"But it has not made content free. Accordingly, we intend to charge for all our news websites. I believe that if we are successful, we will be followed by other media.

"Quality journalism is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalising its ability to produce good reporting," he said.

In order to stop readers from moving to the huge number of free news websites, Mr Murdoch said News Corp would simply make its content "better and differentiate it from other people".



In this economy? You're going to get people to PAY for online news? News that's pretty much available anywhere else for free? Hell, even if I wanted to look at the "better content" available there, I could just find a blog that would redact it for me (most likely in a witty fashion)

Its bad enough they want to barrage you with ads, but now you get to pay for the privilege of viewing said ads

[boosterp]

He'll fail and move back to ad generated revenue. What ever analysts gave him the idea will be on unemployment.

[west milly Tom]

No way, this is the first step. You'll be paying for access to all major sites and their affiliated brothers and sisters. The days of web content being free are over.

[TooLowBrow]

When the New York Times abandoned its subscription model - visits to its website jumped from about 12 million per day to almost 20 million per day, said the former general manager of NYTimes.com, Vivian Schiller.

Ms Schiller, now chief executive at National Public Radio (NPR) in the US, told the BBC's PM programme that the higher audience had "more value than the limited number of people who were prepared to pay for content".

However last month the paper said it was studying different ways to charge for access to its website. The Financial Times and Wall Street Journal already charge readers.

how sad is it when you make a billion dollar mistake and no one can learn from it

[TooLowBrow]

this also seems stupid because i see so many news 'article' written by bloggers, not reporters and the modern day reporter on the street has become 'text us your cell pics of the incident'

goddamn i-reporters

[underdog]

No way, this is the first step. You'll be paying for access to all major sites and their affiliated brothers and sisters. The days of web content being free are over.

What? Stuff gets free-er every day.

[MisterSmith]

No way, this is the first step. You'll be paying for access to all major sites and their affiliated brothers and sisters. The days of web content being free are over.

It is also the first step to finding new ways around it. Charging for crap like news is just going to increase traffic on torrent sites and other places that will give Murdoch the finger and post articles (or 'edited' versions of them) for free anyway.

[cougarjake13]

i dont doubt theyl try but i doubt theyll succeed

[landarch]

I don't see how charging for their content will work out for them in the long run, as edited and bastardized versions of the same stories will always find their way around being charged for.......but I am intrigued by this idea. It's been said here that the Wall Street Journal charges for it's content. I've not paid for any of it, as I don't read the WSJ. Those who do pay for it, however, are most likely not subjected to the bullshit fluff or flashy sensationalist stories. Those storied that are designed solely to attract readers and strike fear or rage in the people, all for the sake of increasing the hit count on some douche's webpage. The WSJ online subscribers are getting a quality, reputable product.

Although I shudder at the thought of having to pay for web content, I also see it as having potential to be a really good thing. This country is being dumbed down and held back because of the free dogshit we are spoon-fed under the guise of "news". Yesterday's video headline on comcast.net's homepage of the shoeless baby being banned from a Burger King is a prime example. That's not news, it's a distraction. People are more worried about shit like this, that doesn't even involve them, than they are about the wars we are fighting, or the grossly undereducated children in some of our public schools.

Maybe if we are forced to pay for our content, then they will be forced to give us something meaninful and intelligent, and people can benefit from it.

I'm not naive enough to think that this is a cure-all. People still pay good money to subscribe to People Magazine and the National Enquirer. I do feel though that a pay-for-content system could really serve to clean up the internet of some of the garbage, or at least make it easier to avoid if I choose to.