Would you pay to read papers online?

[Noreen]

Vote here, you see the latest totals after you've voted.

Rupert ­Murdoch expects to start charging for access to News Corporation's newspaper websites within a year. 'The current days of the internet will soon be over,' he said, as the media strived to fix a ­'malfunctioning' business model. Would you pay to read papers online?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2009/may/07/newspapers-rupert-murdoch

[Rik]

I'm in the majority. No chance of me paying, I'm afraid, unless the quality improved dramatically. At the moment, most online journalism is even more slipshod than the printed variant. IAC, I pay Murdoch enough for Sky.

[Noreen]

Me too.

[Rik]

We are unanimous.

[Glenn]

Make that 3

[Rik]

If there's enough of us, we can become magnanimous.

[Dopamine]

I pay £7 a week to have the Telegraph delivered Mon-Sat, but I wouldn't pay even 7p to read it online. For me, staring at a monitor just doesn't do it.

Don't underestimate Murdoch though. Anyone who can get people to pay to watch adverts (Sky subscription channels still carry advertising, don't they?) shouldn't be taken lightly.

[Rik]

I never under-estimate, Murdoch, Dopamine, his track record would make that unwise.

[kinmel]

I pay £7 a week to have the Telegraph delivered Mon-Sat,

I have a direct subscription that gets me daily vouchers for The Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph at a cost of £48.75 per quarter by Direct Debit (£3.75 per week) which effectively gives me the 5 weekday papers free, I pay the newsagent a further 50p a week for the 7 days delivery.

Telephone their subscription service team on 0800 33 20 20 and ask what personal subscription offers they have available for you.

Quote my rate if you have to, a number of people I know have made the call and have been put on the same deal from the start of the next quarter ( which starts on 15/6/2009 )

[bobleslie]

Why a sane person would actually pay for the pile of poo which is the British Press, I cannot imagine. 

It's much easier to get information online from the very sources that these scum bag journalists (I use the term loosely) use, before they get their grubby little mitts on the 'facts'. 

As for paying online. Not a chance. 

[Dopamine]

I have a direct subscription that gets me daily vouchers for The Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph at a cost of £48.75 per quarter by Direct Debit (£3.75 per week) which effectively gives me the 5 weekday papers free, I pay the newsagent a further 50p a week for the 7 days delivery.

Telephone their subscription service team on 0800 33 20 20 and ask what personal subscription offers they have available for you.

Quote my rate if you have to, a number of people I know have made the call and have been put on the same deal from the start of the next quarter ( which starts on 15/6/2009 )

Thank you. I'm very grateful. I'd heard about this discounted subscription, but had never been able to find details or a phone number. I'll ring them and do a bit of haggling and see where I get.

[Dopamine]

Why a sane person would actually pay for the pile of poo which is the British Press, I cannot imagine. 

It's much easier to get information online from the very sources that these scum bag journalists (I use the term loosely) use, before they get their grubby little mitts on the 'facts'. 

As for paying online. Not a chance. 

Do the journalists that write online come from the non-scum section of the profession, or are you referring to the many agenda driven blogs full of inaccuracies and bias?

The internet might be a great place for information, but it's far less regulated, and far more inaccurate, than the printed media (which I concede isn't always a lot better)

[kinmel]

Thank you. I'm very grateful. I'd heard about this discounted subscription, but had never been able to find details or a phone number. I'll ring them and do a bit of haggling and see where I get.

Let us know how you get on

[bobleslie]

Do the journalists that write online come from the non-scum section of the profession, or are you referring to the many agenda driven blogs full of inaccuracies and bias?

The internet might be a great place for information, but it's far less regulated, and far more inaccurate, than the printed media (which I concede isn't always a lot better)

Your description of the 'blogs' perfectly describes much of the British Press I was referring to. Not all, admittedly, but most.

I tend to use sources such as Reuters and AP online. 

I ignore the BBC, Sky, ITV, the UN etc. because they are all institutionally PC and biased against this country.

The thing I like about reading the world's press (not blogs) is you eventually get somewhere close to the truth.

Your use of the word 'regulation' wrt our Press gave me a brief moment of comic relief.

[Sebby]

I wouldn't want to pay for something intangible like news.

[bobleslie]

Of course, on line you don't have to.

However, Dopamine has a good point that you've got to beware internet sources, unless you're sure of that source.

[somanyholes]

If a new online newspaper started and it was called something like triple verified, no bs included i might. Beyond that then no. I think he will be shooting himself in the foot by doing this....

[Rik]

I wish he'd aim a bit higher. 

[Sebby]

[Rik]

[zappaDPJ]

Would you pay to read newspapers online?
11.5%  Yes 
88.5%  No 

The result is not too surprising, most people wouldn't vote to pay for something that they can currently get for free.

I doubt that any news based website would survive on a wholly subscription only basis. I suspect a subscription version with richer content might be the only way to make it viable.

[Rik]

Sites like the New Scientist achieve it, but they have a niche market which makes it possible.

[Noreen]

As far as the "New Scientist" is concerned the website is just an extra to the actual magazine subscription.

[Rik]

Ah!.

[vitriol]

No I wouldnt pay to read an online "paper"

The news is just depressing anyway.