A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
Terrible? Why? The alternative is a news organization run by private individuals.
BBC might appear free but everyone has to buy a TV license. If the advertising revenue dries up what other options are there for "free" press (both financially and editorially free)?
As far as i can tell the idea of free news is pretty recent with the internet, where did the free news come from in the past?
Yes, that is true. i guess I was thinking of the Washington Times run by Moon. At what point does the filtering of news become too strong? Most newspapers do at least attempt to have some balance.
TrackDaddy wrote:It was tried before back when you had to register at many newspaper websites and a few asked for money. Ironically(?), I'm pretty sure the NY Times was one of them.
The Wall Street Journal still does. A good deal of their web content requires a paid subscription to the site, even if you are a paid subscriber to the print edition.
Yes, that is true. i guess I was thinking of the Washington Times run by Moon. At what point does the filtering of news become too strong? Most newspapers do at least attempt to have some balance.
I'm not sure although there are a few media outlets who come to mind as suspect.
I agree that in my experience most legitimate papers try to be balanced.
What's funny is that now it seems that most people expect media to be on one side or the other (politically, at least).
a move last week by Marriott International, the global hotel and resort chain, suggested that, in an increasingly carbon-conscious world, newspapers have another sort of sustainability to worry about.
The hotelier announced that it would no longer deliver newspapers automatically to the doors of its guests . . . .Based on preliminary data, the company projects that newspaper distribution will be reduced by about 50,000 papers daily or 13 million papers annually, thereby avoiding 10,350 tons of carbon emissions.
Is this going on elsewhere?
The Daily Oklahoman, only daily newspaper in OKC, with state wide distribution has in recent months downsized to near tabloid size, smaller font, dropped comics, more concise articles (not a bad idea IMO) and quietly reduced staff.
This paper is owned by the Gaylord family, probably the richest family you never heard of, who also own maximun number of TV and radio stations allowed by law, Opryland in Nashville, Broadmoor in Colorado Springs, Gaylordia CC in OKC and control the OKC Thunder NBA team. The paper editorally reports that is is profitable, possibly because it has taken such measures.
A possibly related indication of reduced advertising revenue is that the AMC 24 screen theatre, located in a modern upscale mall, has recently stopped advertising in the paper. It is kind of a nuisance to have to look up movies and show times on the internet.
Oprah Winfrey is fleeing broadcast television for cable. NBC, once arguably the biggest cultural tastemaker in the United States, is being shopped to Comcast, the country’s largest cable company.
Have we finally reached a tipping point that suggests a remarkable decline in the fortunes of broadcast television in America?
gm wrote:Forget the comics? FORGET THE COMICS??? What are you, some kind of neanderthal? There's no other reason to buy the paper any more. And it's also why I never bother with the NYT. If you ain't got comics, you ain't worth bothering with!
Faced with an ad market that no longer supplies enough revenue to meet costs, many newspapers are now considering putting up pay walls on their Web sites, long an anathema in Internet culture. Consumers used to roaming freely across the Web in search of news and opinion may soon find themselves being asked to register at news sites and, in some cases, to fork over a credit card number.
Well, today Gannett rolled out their online subscription structure for all their newspapers - except USA Today - which included my local Cincinnati Enquirer. In short, non-subscribers get 20 article views a month before they're shut out.
Of course, I had my plan - use a VPN that issues a new IP addy every time you log in. Except that didn't work. I couldn't figure out why, until it hit me. No, it couldn't be so simple as a cookie, could it? A cookie that, when dumped, would reset the counter?
It's laughable really. I use Chrome for my browser, and all I have to do is browse the Enquirer website in Incognito mode, and when I close the window it automatically dumps all cookies I've picked up for that session. Voila! Next visit to the newspapers website my counter is back at zero page views. Did they not think people would figure out it was a cookie?
guru wrote:In short, non-subscribers get 20 article views a month before they're shut out.
That specific business model is bound to fail. Either they count it in a way that's easy to get around, as it seems to be the case here; or they make it more difficult to get around, in which case it raises more privacy concerns.
Instead, they could easily separate content between subcriber and non-subscriber; or they could generally show non-subscribers the first couple paragraphs, and subscribers the whole article.
tandfman wrote:And do you think that they won't figure out that people are figuring it out and then figure out a way to stop people from doing what you're doing?
They could use more sophisticated cookies, could log your IP address, or do something similar. One way or the other, it would raise additional privacy concerns.
tandfman wrote:And do you think that they won't figure out that people are figuring it out and then figure out a way to stop people from doing what you're doing?
They could use more sophisticated cookies, could log your IP address, or do something similar. One way or the other, it would raise additional privacy concerns.
Any cookie can be dumped, and an IP logger(which I too thought they would use) is easily beaten by a VPN like Hotspot Shield
guru wrote:Any cookie can be dumped, and an IP logger(which I too thought they would use) is easily beaten by a VPN like Hotspot Shield
So let's say a store in your hometown puts a tracking device into your pocket every time you enter the store, and they also write down your licence plate number.
You fine with that? After all, you could easily take the tracking device out of your pocket and dump it, and you could walk there instead of using your car.
guru wrote:Well, today Gannett rolled out their online subscription structure for all their newspapers - except USA Today
I only have the on-line USA Today subscription. I'm dumping my print SI and Time subs for the iPad the school just gave us all. T&FN MUST stay as print or how else can I prove my über-geekdom, by showing off my yards and yards of T&F-related bookshelf material?
Last edited by Marlow on Tue Oct 02, 2012 6:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Conor Dary wrote:People actually read USA Today every day? The only time I look at it is when it is outside the door on the floor in the morning at a hotel.
I value Cultural (sic) Literacy (it's actually a requisite of my job) and USAT covers that better and more succinctly than anyone else. Time is a close second.
Conor Dary wrote:People actually read USA Today every day? The only time I look at it is when it is outside the door on the floor in the morning at a hotel.
I value Cultural (sic) Literacy (it's actually a requisite of my job) and USAT covers that better and more succinctly than anyone else. Time is a close second.
No one does succinctly better than USAToday. That is why I can read the whole paper in about 10 minutes.
USA today used to be the perfect quick read for a 20-minute bus ride to work - and they used to have good track & field coverage while Dick Patrick was around.
I live in Sweden. I have a very advantageous, efficient airmail subscription to the American Time magazine. I am really satisfied, yet .... sometimes I feel like cancelling the whole thing. And why? Because Time sometimes use small typefaces in hard to read colours, often small, pastel colours, even light grey, which is impossible to read. One day I will be so irritated I will cancel for sure. If the industry is in crisis, why do they persist with these easily addressable mistakes at the risk of losing faithful customers?
Anthony Treacher wrote:Because Time sometimes use small typefaces in hard to read colours, often small, pastel colours, even light grey, which is impossible to read.
Tony, you're just too fussy.One reason they may do it is thatis they have nothing to say and hope they can hide the fact?
My aging eyes have the same problem with Time and a number of other magazines..Artsy, teensy, light colored font on dark background (or dark opn dark)is especially difficult to read.. I either have to find my magnifying glass or give up..
lonewolf wrote:My aging eyes have the same problem with Time and a number of other magazines..Artsy, teensy, light colored font on dark background (or dark opn dark)is especially difficult to read.. I either have to find my magnifying glass or give up..
) is waaaay higher than mine!!!
