Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ask Slashdot: What Online News Is Worth Paying For?

Posted by Soulskill on from the pennies-on-the-page dept.

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?"

6 of 361 comments (clear)

  1. Paid by advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I do not run an ad blocker, and I am fairly tolerant of adverts alongside my news. I will continue reading a site even if the entire sidebar is flashing animated gifs at me.

    That is my payment.

    I do block flash content, because ads with sound step over the line, and I will stop visiting a site that loads keyword ads in the text of an article, but almost anything else I consider to be a fair condition for free access to content.

  2. NYT for me, but paying somewhere is important by artor3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The submitter may not think its worth it, but I've been happy with my online subscription. I like the periodic long form articles going in depth on topics that I often find interesting, the opinion articles where they actually invite several people with different view points to present their own argument (without just yelling at each other), and the general news coverage which usually doesn't get too caught up in the petty cable news fodder. (The "missing white girl of the week" stories.)

    Plus I am absolutely addicted to their Numberplay feature.

    But more important than any specific site, I think its important to pay for news. Research isn't free, and if we don't pay for it, who will? Remember -- who ever pays for it gets to decide what goes in. I don't want that to be the government, nor do I want it to be some rich "benefactor" with an agenda to push. Sure, we can get stuff like the Snowden leaks for free, but we need journalists like those at the Guardian to pore over the data and find the juicy bits. I don't trust random bloggers to do so, because the signal would get lost in the noise, and most of us don't have time to do it ourselves.

    1. Re:NYT for me, but paying somewhere is important by Ash+Vince · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Remember -- who ever pays for it gets to decide what goes in. I don't want that to be the government, nor do I want it to be some rich "benefactor" with an agenda to push. Sure, we can get stuff like the Snowden leaks for free, but we need journalists like those at the Guardian to pore over the data and find the juicy bits.

      You realize, of course, that those Guardian journalists work for the Guardian, which is funded by a trust created by a wealthy man, for the purpose of ensuring that the Guardian stayed to the editorial course he had laid out. So, it's EXACTLY a case of a publication with a "rich "benefactor" with an agenda to push."

      It would be good to mention that the rich benefactor in question has been pushing up daisies for the better part of a century and so has become a bit "hands off" :)

      Nowadays how the Guardian covers news and what agenda it pushes is largely determined by the journalists themselves and the editor.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
  3. Slashdot! by herve_masson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would pay for a slashdot version with >80% of articles about technology :)

  4. Re:50 cent by flyneye · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I object to the implication that I am supposed to pay for all the bullshit and propaganda funnelled in through my senses, since I have to spend the time and memory to sort any sort of useful truth out of it, dont forget the ads. My time is worth money; far more money than any stinking newsclown I can think of. THEY SHOULD PAY ME to intake their particular brand. I want my money and I want it NOW!!!
    Until then I will kick off my shoes, air my dirty socks and comment on whatever unpleasant thing crosses my mind, searching for kindred spirits.
    Pay me, I will be more polite.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  5. Consumer reports by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not exactly "News" but the only website subscription I've ever felt it worth paying was Consumer Reports. It pays for itself many times over every time I buy an appliance. It may sound lame, but my Vacuum cleaner has lasted 10 years... our dishwasher is insanely quiet... Our LCD TV has a better picture than my brother-in-laws $5000 sony and it cost us $700. Then we get into the automotive section and the sites likely saved me tens of thousands. For $20/year it's well worth it.