Ask Slashdot: What Online News Is Worth Paying For?

schnell writes "The increasing prevalence of online news paywalls and 'nag walls' (e.g. you can only read so many articles per month) has forced me to divide those websites into two categories: those that offer content that is unique or good enough to pay for vs. those that don't. Examples of the former for me included The Economist and Foreign Policy, while other previous favorite sites The New York Times and even my hometown Seattle Times have lost my online readership entirely. I also have a secret third category — sites that don't currently pay/nag wall, but I would pay for if I had to — Ars Technica and Long Form come to mind. What news/aggregation sites are other Slashdotters out there willing to pay for, and why? What sites that don't charge today would you pay for if you had to? Or, knowing this crowd, are the majority just opposed to paying for any web news content on principle?"

Comments

Re:What news is worth paying for?

[Chrisq]

Wikileaks.

Free to you but, Julian Assange is paying for it big time.

Re:Where to obtain relevant news ?

[wonkey_monkey]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:50 cent

[ChunderDownunder]

Is that you, Rupert?

Re:None

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why I love Fox News. They report things you won't see *anywhere* else. Because they just make shit up.

Re:The Guardian

[gsslay]

if you read the Guardian and the Daily Mail, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Let me represent that graphically for you

Left - Guardian - - - - - - - - - - Truth - - - - - - - - - - - Right - - Bigotry - - - Lies - - Daily Mail

Re: I paid $200 a year for the Wall Street Journal

[DNS-and-BIND]

That's pretty rich. The New York Times, of all newspapers, criticizing another newspaper for political bias.