The insidious paywall!

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is a disturbing article in Haaretz titled

Israeli Forces Use Stun Grenades in Clashes With Palestinians Inside Al-Aqsa Mosque ​

which ...

Never mind. Haaretz is one of a number of a news sources that employ a paywall, and I suspect that very few RF members will read the article.

Speaking of which, do you feel paywalls are reasonable?

 

[Stevicus]

I think it depends. Before I had internet, I would frequently buy at least 1, sometimes 2 or 3 newspapers per day. As long as the price was reasonable and I was getting a complete product, then I had no problem with it. However, at some point during the 90s and beyond, I noticed that the prices were increasing, yet the quantity and quality of news seemed to be declining. There was more and more advertising.

Now, the way it is on the internet, I might see a news feed or see a link posted in a forum like this, and then hit a paywall. Sometimes, they might give a few free articles per month (or maybe not), but I can't see paying for a subscription just to read one article. Especially if it's just a reprint of a wire service article that I can get for free on the Associated Press website. There are enough news sites without paywalls where they rely on advertising revenue.

 

[exchemist]

I think it depends. Before I had internet, I would frequently buy at least 1, sometimes 2 or 3 newspapers per day. As long as the price was reasonable and I was getting a complete product, then I had no problem with it. However, at some point during the 90s and beyond, I noticed that the prices were increasing, yet the quantity and quality of news seemed to be declining. There was more and more advertising.

Now, the way it is on the internet, I might see a news feed or see a link posted in a forum like this, and then hit a paywall. Sometimes, they might give a few free articles per month (or maybe not), but I can't see paying for a subscription just to read one article. Especially if it's just a reprint of a wire service article that I can get for free on the Associated Press website. There are enough news sites without paywalls where they rely on advertising revenue.

Yes. There are enough free good ones (BBC, Guardian, Independent) and some weeklies where one can read a certain number of articles per month without paying (New Statesman, Spectator, Prospect). But I pay for a daily paper copy of the Financial Times as well. I buy that mainly for the comment, as they have a stable of excellent columnists, and the slant-free presentation of current affairs, which corrects the left bias of the Guardian (which is fairly sound but is written for schoolteachers, basically, and has a lot of identity politics crap).

I see paywalls as the equivalent of buying a paper, so have no objection to them in principle, but the FT is expensive and buying (a good) one is enough for me.

 

[dybmh]

There is a disturbing article in Haaretz titled

Israeli Forces Use Stun Grenades in Clashes With Palestinians Inside Al-Aqsa Mosque ​

which ...

Never mind. Haaretz is one of a number of a news sources that employ a paywall, and I suspect that very few RF members will read the article.

Speaking of which, do you feel paywalls are reasonable?

I found this which descibes the incident without the paywall. Are there details missing here which are being provided by Haaretz? Also, from inside the paywall, is there advertising?

Israeli forces storm Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa mosque, arresting hundreds of Palestinian worshipers

Violence erupted at the sensitive site in Jerusalem's Old City, among the holiest for both Jews and Muslims, fueling fears of a wider conflict.

www.cbsnews.com

If the information is available from other sources which are supported by advertising ( and not installing adware, of course ), it seems to me that a paywall isn't needed, and is probably counter-productive to bringing information to people who need it. It's counter-productive because judgements can be made based on the headline and not on the details. Hint: I'd encourage people to read this story, and pay attention to what happened.

 

[Estro Felino]

I prefer to go to the newsagent's to buy newspapers...

 

[We Never Know]

There is a disturbing article in Haaretz titled

Israeli Forces Use Stun Grenades in Clashes With Palestinians Inside Al-Aqsa Mosque ​

which ...

Never mind. Haaretz is one of a number of a news sources that employ a paywall, and I suspect that very few RF members will read the article.

Speaking of which, do you feel paywalls are reasonable?

Best way is to just google the headline. You will get many with no paywall.


A few no paywall....

Violence at Jerusalem Holy Site Raises Fears of Escalation

Israeli police stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem’s Old City early Wednesday, firing stun grenades at Palestinians who hurled stones and firecrackers in a burst of violence during a sensitive holiday season

www-nbcbayarea-com.cdn.ampproject.org

Israeli Police Raid Al-Aqsa Mosque, Clash With Palestinians in Jerusalem

The fighting comes as Muslims mark the holiday month of Ramadan and Jews prepare to begin the Passover festival on Wednesday evening

time.com

Violence at Jerusalem mosque prompts fears of wider fighting

Israeli police have stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem’s Old City, firing stun grenades and beating Palestinian youths who hurled firecrackers in a burst of violence during a sensitive holiday seasons

abcnews-go-com.cdn.ampproject.org

Violence erupts again at Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa Mosque

Israeli police clashed with Palestinians at Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa Mosque a second time on Wednesday, hours after the arrest and removal of more than 350 people in a police raid at the compound.

www.reuters.com

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I found this which descibes the incident without the paywall. Are there details missing here which are being provided by Haaretz? Also, from inside the paywall, is there advertising? ...

This is not intended as an add for Haaretz. (I also subscribe to the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, and others, while financially supporting information sources such as Wikipedia, The Times of Israel, and the Guardian, in other ways. Sometimes the information I get is duplicative, sometimes it is more extensive and/or insightful, and sometimes it is information that I would not stumble across otherwise.

This is not so different than what occurred when I was much younger and subscribed to various information sources. If I didn't respect a particular source, I would tend to avoid it irrespective of cost. Conversely, if I did respect the source, I would subscribe despite the fact some of its content might have been available for free elsewhere.

Good journalism is an expensive endeavor. We either support it or lose it. The idea that we should have access -- a view that I do not attribute to you -- reflects a sense of entitlement that I find pernicious and repulsive.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I prefer to go to the newsagent's to buy newspapers...

I'm not sure what that means.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It's not as if there is a shortage of news outlets that are not insistent - even quite good ones - and hence any that do require a subscription, or even insist I view their adverts, tend to not be viewed any more. I have registered with a few but even then it seems that some are now not insisting on logging in - so that is nice. I see it as them getting free advertising if I cite any of their articles anyway, such that I'm not fussy if some become too insistent. Move along now is my motto.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think it depends.

Do you currently subscribe (or regularly donate to) a source or sources?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... Move along now is my motto.

OK.

 

[Mock Turtle]

OK.

I am a sinner, I know.

 

[Stevicus]

Do you currently subscribe (or regularly donate to) a source or sources?

I donate to Wikipedia. I've also donated to the Tucson Sentinel (Tucson Sentinel - Tucson, Arizona news, information & commentary).