Want to read all about it online? It may cost you
Technology ( 10 )
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
Rakuten to launch e-commerce service in Malaysia
( 1 )
-
Microchip maker Renesas may cut 14,000 jobs, reports say
( 1 )
-
Facebook makes mobile move after IPO flop
( 3 )
-
KDDI unveils au smartphone lineup for summer
( 10 )
-
Google reveals copyrighted material claims
( 1 )
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
10 Comments
Login to comment
0
proxy
Good luck.
0
BuddhismTech
Non-mainstream-media bloggers are now better at delivering high quality news than the mainstream media. Bloggers are asking for donations while the mainstream media are selling products. The information war will not be very pretty!
0
DeepAir65
If they are ad free and good quality I might consider it
0
randomenigma
Hey, if they want to do it, let them. I (and presumably many others) will just not use those news sources and go for the free ones instead.
0
Ranger_Miffy
Killing the golden goose. Information must be free to roam.
0
sharky1
Would not even consider paying. Already pay for Internet access, pay for my computer, pay for computer accessories, how much more do I need to shell out??
0
Cicada
If it is not found anywhere else, then it is not news.
Daunting= impossible. And anyway if their information is important, it would be reported elsewhere. If no one is reporting it, then it is not news. Even commentaries or opinion pieces would be reported as news, if the opinion was considered important.
The point is, would you pay money to read Alan Mutter's opinions?
0
sf2k
they can't make money online because they are not an online business. Experience has shown me that no matter the intentions, unless online business has Internet people in the decision making process they cannot succeed.
Thus they will just shrink down to a size that is supported by ads and local subscribers. They are too big, too merged and too stupid. A lot of fluff will go, and that's a good thing.
Editors are taken to task more online, if it bleeds it leads isn't how most of us use the Internet. The level of conversation happens more readily than a newspaper could ever achieve.
When Gore noted 928 peer reviewed articles on climate change with zero articles against it, a 100% acceptance rate, the newspapers had a 53% acceptance rate. Why anyone should accept the lousy science and low C- reporting standards of newspapers is another nail in their coffin.
Good riddance to the useless news. Hello useful news
0
sf2k
sorry, that's clearly a D not a C-
0
dwjohnst
The news we enjoy reading for the most part have descended from printed newspapers and magazines, that I for one have paid for ever since I can remember. The difference is that now, the media has changed, but writers, reporters, and equipment are all still required to generate this content, just like in the paper days. So, point one is that it costs money to create the content, especially content that does more that report on just a single event but instead synthesizes a series of related events to form real information, not just data.
So then if we agree that information costs money, how can we justify that we the consumer of it should not share responsibility for its cost?
Spread over all of we consumers, the cost would be little. If we don't choose to pay something then only two outcomes can happen: the news will be subsidized by a government or other source having their own agenda, or worse, the good sources will fold.
I'm ok with paying a small amount, just like I now pay for cable tv rather than just over-the-air tv as before.
Back to top