Comments on: A few words on the Times paywall

By: Josef

Josef — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 02:26:30 +0000

Heather, in Skagit County, WA, USA – we got the Skagit Valley Herald. The SVH posts excerpts and allows comments… but puts many stories plus fine details behind a paywall. We just aren’t big enough to support an ad-based newspaper 7/52 in Skagitonia.

Of course if you wrote for it… and posed for it … everybody would wait for the next masterstroke of genius liberty thundering down upon the Brutopicracy .

Oh well, keep firing. I think many, many Americans want to be like you.

By: Richard Tobin

Richard Tobin — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:13:17 +0000

The reason I subscribe to a (hard-copy) newspaper, the Telegraph every day, is because I find it far better for reading full articles, it is more flexible to use (in bed, on the loo, in a cafe, etc) and the annual cost is a no-brainer deal. That does not mean I am, in my head, paying for content; that I can get on-line for free. I am ‘paying’ for the physical item.

I do not read from the ‘main-stream’ news on the web or in print because they are without inaccurate rumour or propaganda – far from it. I read the main-stream media precisely because it is chock full brimming to bursting point with punch-pulling reporting – lies and propaganda. Then at least I know what it is we are expected to be thinking.

I hope Heather Brooke is right and the Times start to publish more meaningful investigative reporting. But why would they start now? If they were free to or desired to they could have done so and pushed the Telegraph off of the No1 print sales podium years ago.

The strength of seeking news from the web is ability to trawl a very wide net to gain a broad understanding with clarity. It requires the desire and ability to ask questions and seek answers. The last thing I am going to do is pay for all my news to come from one establishment mouth-piece via the web. That would be like having a great kitchen with access to any ingredient from all around the world and then always eating M&S oven ready dinners.

By: Sue Dobbs

Sue Dobbs — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:33:23 +0000

Your previous blog post on “Court Secrecy” (which makes very interesting reading, by the way) states that it is a longer version of an article published in the Times. The fact that you have blogged the article means that I have been able to read an interesting piece of journalism on an important topic without needing to go behind the Times paywall. If you had not blogged it I would never have read it. The motivation for journalists to blog their work in order to ensure that it continues to be read by a broad readership undermines the paywall model.

By: Andrew Denny

Andrew Denny — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:08:00 +0000

Damn, I wrote a short but reasoned argument on why I’m in favour of paywalls, only not in the form that The Times does it, and the implications for freedom of information. I cut it out of my previous comment for reasons of space to paste it into another comment, then accidentally overwrote the clipboard. Sorry, I’ll have to do it again sometime.

By: Andrew Denny

Andrew Denny — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:51:01 +0000

Heather,

Firstly, I originally read at the end of the post that ‘there was a longer version of it in the Times’. I can see now that I got it wrong – you said the blog is the longer version. (I’m used to seeing the locution “This is an edited version of an article in The Times”) My apologies.

Based on my original mistake, my reaction was prompted by thinking that if you are taking such a principled stand against official secrecy, then your ENTIRE ARGUMENT should be in the open and not be behind a paywall. (“Justice should be open to all, like The Times paywall,” as Lord Justice Mathew might have said.)

However, I screwed that one up by not reading the end of your post properly

Believe it or not, I’m *NOT* against a paywall. And bravo for Rupert Murdoch for trying to take this stand. If he makes it work, well, great. We all want to be paid for our work. But I’m uneasy about the way The Times is doing it, and like to expand on that, but I don’t think this particular comment is the place to do it. Maybe in another comment, if you’re not already too bored

Can I just add that you frequently mention ‘paying taxes’ as justification for the right to getting public information. I’d argue that paying taxes is just another paywall. I think the information should be freely available without having to be a taxpayer – or even a citizen.

Andrew Denny

By: Kate Bevan

Kate Bevan — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:38:37 +0000

I’m a serious journalist and proud to work for a newspaper that continues to publish its website for free. Taking the Murdoch shilling and then defending its paywall undermines your credibility, Heather, and I’m very sorry to see that.

The debate about paywalls is an interesting one and yes, absolutely, quality journalism has to be paid for somehow. The FT proves that you can charge a premium for unique and valued content. Online readers however don’t seem to regard The Times’ journalism as unique or valued. Writing for The Times means your work is in effect rendered invisible online. Your choice, I suppose.

The broader issue of how to monetise online news is one we’re going to continue to grapple with for a while yet. But one thing’s for sure: paywalls, unless you have something really special to offer, are not the way forward. I fear for the day Murdoch decides it’s no longer worth paying for a website for The Times and closes it down.

By: Josh Spero

Josh Spero — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:32:43 +0000

I would like to think that you’re right – quality will have to improve – but the increasing technologisation of the industry means that ‘content producers’ will still have to divide their time between blogging, vlogging, writing articles, etc, and will still have to stay glued to their desks, leaving less time for in-depth original work.