I agree with you Sandra, I read our local newspaper daily. And there just is something about turning the pages and taking my time browsing through all the different articles and advertisements. I would never pay to read a newspaper or magazine online but the way things are going with newspapers, I may just have to do that someday.
There is so much free news information on the internet there is no reason to pay. But, if it were all taken away, and the only option was to pay, I would. I think it's important to be informed of what's going on. I do pay to watch the news, so I would pay to read it, if necessary.
I wouldn't pay to read that kind of news, that is for sure. The main stream media is full of lies, why would I want to pay for it? Now if it was an actual news source that reported on the truth and didn't just report to spread rumors or lies, I may pay to support it. I am sick of hearing all about the crazy people murdering others out there. I want to hear more stories about why raw milk is good for you, etc.
Nowadays, I wouldn't anymore, at least not regularly. I still purchase newspapers from time to time but I only buy it almost for the nostalgia factor. The internet has really spoiled us all in terms of being so updated 24/7 that we cannot wait for tomorrow's newspaper to read about stuff anymore.
Hell no. I much prefer to get my news from independent sources instead. If I couldn't get those, then I'd wait for someone who wanted to pay to share them
I don't think I would pay for everyday news, but I do pick up news magazines occasionally. If they have some extra content I think I would pay for it. I like read editorials. I particularly like finance news so I don't mind paying if there's good financial content.
I agree. Between news outlets constantly updating their breaking news and social media with real-time updates, by the time you read something in print, it's already old news. I pick up the paper on my way to work; the Washington Post has a small free paper called the Washington Post Express. It's the perfect read for my commute - as I start it when I get on the train and am done with it when I get to my stop. But, if I didn't have that, I think I'd be OK because I can still catch anything I missed on the Internet. Even if news outlets, magazines, and newspapers decided to start charging for their online content, there'd be too many ways to still be updated.
With the popularity of the internet, I don't think I would be paying to read the news. My dad also buys newspaper daily, so news, whether in paper or in digital form is very accessible to me.
I wouldnt pay anything to read the news. I can see it on telly, hear it on the radios and internet provides news already so why spend if you can save.
It's very easy to know the news today. All you have to do is go online and that's it! No need to pay for anything other than the internet of course. My in-laws still buy newspapers though. And then they give it to us afterwards so we can use it as guinea pigs' beddings! haha..
I honestly won't pay for news the way i see it if there is news i want to know there is social networks and all time of free news online so why would i pay.
I think the news is a necessity not a luxury, people need to know if a huge hurricane is heading their way or a rapist is loose on their block, so charging for that information is kind of douche-y. I get that the New York Times and Wall Street Journal have to make money, but they already sell a print version that they charge for. Actually, the average person wouldn't be affected by the Wall Street Journal charging for content because not all of us buy stocks and bonds. But I wouldn't pay for weather and crime reports, I would listen to the radio if I had to.
In some instances, there might be certain news shows that I enjoy watching. In that case, I'd benefit from a satellite or cable TV subscription. On the other hand, to simply know the news, all I have to do is view the internet or read a newspaper at my local library. Therefore, I see paid news as a luxury, not a necessity. In reference to savings, it would depend on whether or not you viewed luxuries as worth the cost.
It's freely available all over net then why should we pay for it. Moreover, if they charge for reading news I think it will adversely affect its popularity and people may look for other options to read news. Basically news should always be free for public but they can earn through indirect methods like advertisements on sites. If news is meant for only a part of the society the basic purpose of a news medium is defeated. A news company's aim should be to deliver it to the maximum number of people. Then only it will serve the purpose.
When there are lot online ways to read news for free why would someone want to pay for it? Almost all major newspaper have their websites online these days and journals likewise. Infact even for research purposes all latest research results are available online. I wouldn't waste money for news.
Those newspapers you mentioned have already been established, which is highly regarded print media or shall we say, a prestigious newspapers. Well, for those who are keeping abreast of what is happening all over the world and only NY Times and Wall Street Journal are carrying the news, they would be obliged to pay just to get the latest news. Personally, I do update myself of the news by reading them online from my preferred news carrier like Google news.
