Slashdot Mirror
Why Paywalls Are Good, But NYT's Is Flawed
GMGruman writes "The New York Times has taken a lot of heat for daring to start charging for its product. (What nerve! Imagine if grocery stores, phone companies, or even employees began charging for their wares!) But the problem, InfoWorld columnist Galen Gruman argues, is that its paywall is poorly designed. It encourages unpaid usage in massive quantities via Twitter and other feeds, undermining its very purpose, and it makes multiple-device mobile users — the growing population — pay more than anyone else. Both should be fixed. But the more troubling underlying issue is that the Internet has devalued content nearly to the point where the business reason to create it is disappearing. In mobile, there's a chance to fix that, but in the way is not just the Web's free-loader mentality but the pricing of carriers for data transport that take a larger chunk out of people's budgets than they should, making it that much harder for people to pony up for the value of the content they get through those carriers' pipes."
I thought most of what they published on there was uninformative, bias , and useless static. Why would someone pay for it.
Blogs are as good or better sources of information , at least the people that publish them make their biases evident.
I have seen few unbalanced, unbiased news articles in my lifetime and non of them were from 'mainstream' press.
Either NPR or Christian Science Monitor but even both of those certainly have bias, they just make some attempt to keep it under control.
The fact is 'the press' has lost credibility with many people. It is no longer held accountable in a way that makes it any more worthy to pay for then my next door neighbors opinion on what is happening. There used to be a saying 'just the facts' and if that were the case I'd think they were doing a service worth paying for.