An eloquent rebuttal to “the commercial and moral case for newspaper paywalls”

For the original article:

I am not against paywalls per se.  I simply will not read news that is behind a paywall while a free alternative exists.  No doubt, some news is definitely worth paying for.  Papers like the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal provide timely, well-edited pieces, and the kind of information that does not really exist for free on the internet.  Yeah, CNBC has some stories and analysis and CNNMoney does too, but for the kind of in-depth coverage that business professionals need, those sources are not enough.

But paywalls will not save a collapsing newspaper industry.  Paywalls are a short-sighted, short-term solution.  You don’t attract readers with paywalls.  Implicit in the word wall is keeping people out.

I want to say that I’m going to miss newspapers when they’re gone, but considering I don’t read them all that often, that’s probably a lie.

[BoingBoing, The Guardian]


Leave a comment

Filed under Tech

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s