Would You Pay for Online News? - Ken Auletta

[ahclancy]

We must pay. Get the news out of the hands of cable and such. Free it so it can be mixed with a plurality of news sources. Surfacing a landslide of news bringing the broader truth to those currently smothered under the weight of government & media controlled news spigots. It MUST be opened to the Internet. Vital to the new world of individual awareness, not simply collective social awareness.

[ahclancy]

Yes. I would pay for mainstream media over the Internet. Gladly. As long as I can get Global news and read it from anywhere I travel (within reason). It is useless, US government sanitized/authorized and I hate their blackout of real news. But getting a take on the social mindset of the masses of led sheep is very important. Same for the trading news channels. It is no longer about global finance, rather global gambling theater in a shadow world. All necessary to get a take on.

[denbowan]

Sentiment aside, he needs to show some evidence for his assertions.

[amzuel420]

Would I pay for online news?....Maybe if I could believe any of it. If that were the case, it'd be a hell of a lot better deal than what we're getting now.

[RoyaIIioness]

So Murdock isn't rich & powerful enough. He (It) wants more. Disgusting & typical.

[madmanDanx2]

Some aspects will eventually be paid for, but there will always be ways to get information for free! For example.. if you get the news from the times website but suddenly they start charging... You would turn your back on them and go to the BBC website where you get it for free. We take the internet for granted in some cases, but if it starts to cost then we will either find other sources on the net or return to other media platforms like TV. They need users to be hooked 100%, then they charge

[bilpayne]

Always had to pay for WSJ & Barron's on line they need to be easier to cancel both them cost something like $400 a year and not worth that much no more

[Smaug84]

I came away with the absurd impression that he is advocating that the Internet become subscription & advertising based. I'd certainly like to know how that model would stand up to internet piracy. Even if you take into account various torrent sites being shut down would any of us truly think that new ones wouldn't sprout up? The Internet as far as I've seen is a model on a strange form of democracy, and I just don't see that disappearing even with massive crackdowns.

[reed0the0red]

let google try to charge for using it's search engine.....lol I guarantee you somebody will make a freeware search engine that is plenty powerful enough that people would avoid paying google to use. Look at Firefox a completely open source web browser that 47% of people online use, thats more than the combined total of all the other browsers.....lol go ahead try google I dare you :)

[planetdarwin]

I would maybe....maybe.... give a penny per article. And even then I wouldn't pre-pay for anything; it would have to be in a donation form, where I give the pennies if I think the reporting was good. Of course a "pay if you liked it" structure opens the door of news sources then pimping the "fireworks stories" (like baloon boy and Jacko's death), while ignoring little things such as the war in Afganistan and AIDs in Africa, and so on. I think the best "pay for news" model currently, is NPR.

[AtheistKharm]

Pay for their crappy reporting? hell no. Bloggers are better at fact checking news stories than they are.

[Blackhalo325]

Pay? No. If they made me pay online would I buy a newspaper instead? No.

[magog1138]

Would I pay for online n- No. No I would not.

If not through NewsCorp., then from someone else.

Typically with more reliable sources, too.

[screwopenborders]

why pay for it? advertisers already pay!

[liber8me]

problem is that advertisers dont pay as much on the internet as they do with the hard copy paper when it has high circulation. so you'll either have to pay for news or have no news because there wont be enough money to pay for it

[LAVATORR]

Where do people get the idea that information should be free? I mean, I agree charging for once-free content is a terrible idea reeking of ignorance and hubris, but there's no historical or economic basis for the idea that unlimited flow of free data is a basic human right.

[Choowbz]

Lavator I wont tell you that your house is on fire unless you pay me Information is communication Don't tell your kids anything until they pay you Keep the poor stupid and dangerous Free information leads to greater commerce Do you believe the information in advertising should be paid for Would you charge people to hear your promotion When someone asks you the time You have the right to remain silent unless they pay for your information

[666norton420]

choowbz,

what you need to understand is that blowing a PoV so out of proportion that it's basically a red herring, is a tactic for the mentally incompetent!

trying to explain to someone that they're wrong by way of demonstrating you've completely missed their point, isn't a real efficient way to look smart.

now looking like an idiot..... the quickest!

;d

[Choowbz]

I was feeling creative and expressive with that last comment

Paying for gossip is a topic that could promote wide discussion

Some believe there would be no news if it was not paid for

And that only information with a high cost is valid

The costs of media are paid for socially in the same way as military and science facilities are

Broadcasting is civil, not private, achievement

Open information is the goal of civilisation

Investigation just for money is a poor motive and regressive

[666norton420]

i agree lavatorr!

it costs money to gather information.

knowledge is power.... if you can't afford it, then you don't get it.

period.

once we genetically engineer our bodies so we don't need food, then we can start talking about fairness on this planet.

until then you're just a bunch of whining babies that want everything and not pay for it.

talk about "economic fail'!

;d

[Choowbz]

norton

"knowledge is power.... if you can't afford it, then you don't get it.

period"

That is the very ideology that motivates fascists and organised religion

Keep a poor and ignorant class and they will never know whats going on

Deprive the poor of information and there will always be someone who gives them free information to social detriment

Money is a relatively new phenomenon in human history

[666norton420]

"Keep a poor and ignorant class and they will never know whats going on"

KEEP?

i'm sorry, but the masses of the 1st worlds are ignorant cause they're fucking stupid! they care for little but their own goals! hypocrites that want the rich to help them, when they themselves are complacent to 3rd worlds.

your ideals are noble, but futile in reality.

shit costs money.... pay up or stop bitching when you don' have it!

lazy fuckers... too dumb to make money?

living a life well lived gets you far...

;d

[CommS007]

Information should be free indeed (^O_O^)

And if news become a commodity it will be even more worthless.

But yeah they are going to try... =(

[lumpfish99]

LYING BASTARD SCUM......information should always be free....what type of world is this SHIT trying to create? WE MUST NEVER MAKE PEOPLE PAY FOR INFORMATION.....EVER......

[magog1138]

Some will demonize you, others will think you're a complete, raving lunatic. I think you embody the overall emotions of internet users- You lack direction, and focus for now. God help the dinosaurs like Murdoch and all those unwilling to evolve once you do.

[liber8me]

what fantasy world do you live in? news is expensive to create. you have to employ hundreds of people to find it, write it up, edit it, build the websites and put it up there. for journalists finding information is their job.

[lumpfish99]

the msm are a bunch of crooks and liars, they present info in a way that creates an illusion of authority.....i have read blogs where people have done more research.....and you want people to pay for lies???

[666norton420]

i can see you're a product of avoiding information...

let me enlighten you... you're an idiot lumpfish!

"what type of world is this SHIT trying to create?'

i dunno.. one that doesn't fall apart economically because everyone isn't as ignorant as yourself to want everything for free!

information is everything to stupid ass!

yes, let's make everything free.. that should work out fine...

;d

[lumpfish99]

first of all no need to be rude, second im not suggesting everything should be free but i do believe that info should be free and accesible to educate people. if they start charging online someone will create a different search engine. if people dont get free info they are easy to control, perhaps thats what you would prefer....??? its called facism......

[1RadicalOne]

Would I pay? No, I can get it for free here and on Wikinews...

[Mastikator]

Fuck the news. It's all partisan hackery, I'd rather have no news than pay for it.

[Prina76]

I allready pay for the internet, i will not pay for news!

[Durchbrechen]

I would not pay anything. I would keep reading free content only. If they try it their newspapers will lose even more audience.

[Derleiter17]

Honestly, it's unlikely. It's sad...but unlikely.

[Durchbrechen]

I think so, I give an exemple. To exercise my English and out of curiosity I follow US news. When there's a shooting, for instance, I go to the local newspapers via google. Or if there's an important event I read the NYT or the WP about it, without following a particular newspaper. This is the way millions of people around the world behave. We're not journalists. It's a pastime, curiosity. I would never pay for such a thing, and the other millions as well. A huge decrease in visitors, for sure

[VAR1UM]

Ive never heard of Ken Auletta before this video, and after watching this... I fucking cant stand him.

[MrBankRuns]

If you want to blast me with propaganda, then you pay for it. All the news outlets are not worth the time it takes to read or listen to there message. I get better news from watching You Tube videos made by amateurs.

[GovWillKillU]

why would i pay for bought off reporters and biased journalism? that to me is worthless.

street level, alternative media is the future; and because its so spread out and holds its only legitimacy in NOT being biased or bought off, alt media cannot be stopped..

[CosmosPrivateer]

Their going to try.

The Control System will get the Internet under control one way or another. They'll do it by only pissing a few off not the majority.

[sexyloser]

The internet is too open to be controlled by one group. If Google or ISPs started to censor/filter what people could see, then people would just use a new search engine or ISP.

[phfrankh]

Can't afford it. Deprive me please! (;-)

[GovWillKillU]

no because its worthless.

alternative media? TRUE news? perhaps if i had too.

[rustyshackelford1980]

No, I will not pay for news. I get it free now. Keep it that way.

[eirefrance]

Yeah, rusty, but the future doesn't really care what you want. Inevitably, the internet will change. How it will change we can never guess. Perhaps paying for content will become the norm. You won't be able to do much about it.

[sexyloser]

The internet is a user-created network. It isn't owned by any company or companies.

Even if the internet were somehow controlled by a few large companies (which is next to impossible), people would just setup a new network and create a new internet.

[eirefrance]

Fine, all I'm saying is that we can't be certain about how the internet may change any more than the defense industry could predict how their post-nuclear fallout communication device would transform our economy and society. Don't tell the future what its going to be, its not going to listen, instead be flexible, so you can be ready for what the future will become.

[sexyloser]

You think media companies haven't already approached internet giants like Google, AOL, Comcast and others about how to control content?

They have, time and time again. And time and time again, the internet companies have always replied the same: "It can't be done."

[CosmosPrivateer]

We need the telecommunications cable for decent speeds.

We could build personal wireless systems thats the only way around the ISP's and Communication companies.

They could control it if they wanted to.

But they may truly fear doing that.