Newspapers, especially the reputed and established ones have good circulation, and revenue is mainly from advertising. Therefore I really dont see the point in charging the users for merely a read.
May 8th, 2009 10:59 am ET
Mr Murdock is not going to get me paying for news online. I can use BBC News, CNN (ofcourse). Mr Murdock does not control all of the media thankfully, so I wouldnt.
Thomas from Ayrshire, Scotland.
May 8th, 2009 11:07 am ET
I would never pay for newspapers on the Web.
I also doubt newspapers could charge readers successfully.
But I believe very much in online advertising.
May 8th, 2009 11:23 am ET
HELL NO!!! and Richard please STOP TALKING ABOUT THIS!!
May 8th, 2009 11:30 am ET
Utopia of Internet is "Free Everything.” It’s beautiful. You sound very ominous but I guess this must be a topic under consideration that is why you have been talking about it.
May 8th, 2009 11:33 am ET
short answer is probably not. but you never know..times are achanging. I subscribe to 3 papers one for week and one for weekend and one monthly small home town town paper so no need to go to web for newspaper also there are lots of news services like CNN out there that have web sites I can go to for free
May 8th, 2009 11:37 am ET
I am not a fan of the digital newspaper.... I still prefer the printed one, but I am not willing to pay for any of them... they should make their money from adverticements! Like the Metro in London.
No, I would not pay for content on the web. I pay enough for the service I don't need to be nickled and dimed to death.
May 8th, 2009 12:35 pm ET
If newspapers were only digital it would save them lots of money. It would be better for the environment.
But NOTHING can replace a lazy Sunday morning, teacup in hand, perusing the news.
The "digital age" will be the ruination of the visceral experiences I associate with reading. And don't get started on Kindle and books, please. *sigh*
May 8th, 2009 2:17 pm ET
Well, to be honest, I need to read a lot of newspapers per day and if I have to, I would pay for the most important (for me) newspapers. I do not need the full paper version – and what about all the trash ?
Never! Maybe it´s time for newspaper to go into the graves. They weigh too much. And it´s time to burry the gatekeepers too. In the future we can all be editors on the net! Ha, ha, ha....
May 8th, 2009 3:23 pm ET
No, no, a hundred times no! I would not pay for newspaper content on the web.
Let's get on to health and safety in the air and airplane travel.
May 8th, 2009 3:42 pm ET
I would pay ONLY if the writing is of superb quality and gives objective insights. If we expect the writers to do what readers want (provide object and insightful analysis), then readers should provide them with the financial incentive to do so. But as soon as I sense that I have to pay AND not getting well written pieces, then I'm out in a heartbeat.
May 8th, 2009 3:45 pm ET
If they should ever charge we the torrents will make it free
May 8th, 2009 4:34 pm ET
Why to pay Prof. Quest? Share it on the billboards.....situation vacant will disappear....RSS feed will beg us on the mail....Spams will flourish.....Mr. Obaaama face will vanish....and why not copy and paste the entire content on the TV.....yes the Eco system will change and the trees will once again show your favorite "GREEN SHOOTS".
May 8th, 2009 4:51 pm ET
Are you kidding me, no way am I gonna pay to read a newspaper online. Let all the newspapers go belly-up and turn thier buildings in to homeless shelters.
May 8th, 2009 5:45 pm ET
Yes, I AM paying for the Detroit Free Press and the Detroit News on the web. We get hard copies delivered on Th, Fri and Sun as well. You can buy hard copies at newstands on the other days. I have been reading it online–its' in PDF, an exact copy of the printed version–since they made it available on an experimental basis a couple of months ago. However, my SO is a non-techie and not willing to do so, so he only reads the paper version three days a week. The paper has really deteriorated, they have laid off a lot of people and shrunk the content, halved the comics. A real shame since the Freep did a great job at uncovering former Mayor Kilpatrick's crimes. I figure that what I pay them is partially a charitable contribution to keep them alive as long as possible, I'm a big newspaper lover but now do all my reading online.
May 8th, 2009 5:54 pm ET
Depends on what content I'm paying for. The only area of the paper with any real value in these days is the local section.
May 8th, 2009 5:56 pm ET
That's just a stupid question!
May 8th, 2009 6:21 pm ET
Depends on the paper .... but I would pay for online or any other mobile way to read the news ... Currently on my Iphone I have my native country's main newspaper, I have USA Today & Wall Street. Then I have News with CNN, BBC and SKYNews my favorites
May 8th, 2009 6:48 pm ET
I really don't see a point in paying for newspaper on the web
May 8th, 2009 6:56 pm ET
May 8th, 2009 7:51 pm ET
I have often brought up this topic with friends and family, how can newspapers expect to be profitable if they're giving away content for free on the web. I think it's too late in the game for them to try to take that away now and make us pay for it. Was this perhaps lack of foresight? The NY Times does require you to log in for some of the content, but not to pay unless you're looking for archived material. Is this one of the reasons that print media is now in trouble? And shouldn't someone have figured out that that might happen? Would like to see a more in-depth piece on this.
May 8th, 2009 8:01 pm ET
yes, I do. For 8 years now –
that's the newspaper I could not get hold on which is a Hong Kong newspaper. I live in Seattle, USA.
May 8th, 2009 8:09 pm ET
YES – if the ads and pop-ups are kept to a minimum. Nothing worse than paying for stories and getting pages with a few lines crammed in between ads. I want to pay for NEWS, not photos of people trying to sell me sexual aids, headache remedies, cheap vacations, life insurance.
May 8th, 2009 8:19 pm ET
Certainly I would pay. Investigative journalism cost money and by no mean advertisment may control content or selection of a newspaper. Independence has its price.
May 8th, 2009 9:09 pm ET
I wouldn`t pay for newspapers on the web. If your going to pay you might as well go buy them.
May 9th, 2009 12:44 am ET
I would never pay the news paper from the web
I prefer read good documentals from the web
Save the world. Richard hi from Mexico.
May 9th, 2009 9:28 am ET
Atlast Mr Murdoch has bell the cat. There is nothing wrong in debating about it. Ofcourse if the content is qualitiative one and if it is beneficial one like the business, stock, commodity analysis they can charge. But not for the general news. Because these things are available in abdundant. But this is a valid point for disucssion for everybody. I believe in NO FREE LUNCH. But if lunch is given free for now, why worry enjoy..... CNN are you listening?
May 9th, 2009 6:18 pm ET
Maybe people can pay little money for the special global web newspapers but I do not think that people pay for the local press. Some countries read and buy lots of newspaper in a day, but some other countries don't buy any newspaper so this is a very complicated situation.
May 10th, 2009 3:13 am ET
1. We should be able to get information for free on the Internet. That's what it's for. I know it has become a haven for greedy companies but that's not the way it was supposed to be.
2. Why would I pay for news? We barely get legiimate and unbiased news as it is. Instead we get entertainment and yellow journalism on a daily basis. As long as the news industry is a money making business, our news will always be tainted and the 1st Ammendment will be abused. Am I surprised they want to find a new way to charge us for it? Nope.
May 10th, 2009 4:27 am ET
CNN and other official media groups are not the only ones to distribute news on the internet.
There are many, many more citizen-driven news sites like reddit.com who distribute raw news free.
If CNN makes its content payable, then people would just shift to a free source.
However post-news analysis is something internet news sites lack.
This is where CNN can shine a lot.
I subscribe to TIME magazine printed edition and ECONOMIST.
Why? Because they offer unparalled post-news analysis and opinions. Not just facts distorted by right-wing and left-wing politics.
What CNN can do to make money is to make its post-news analysis exciting like Salon.
Robert L Varga
May 11th, 2009 3:48 am ET
It's bad enough having to pay for cable News, let alone paying for internet news only to have the same junk regurgitated over and over.
May 11th, 2009 7:50 am ET
I won't pay for a newspaper on the web simply because there is no censorship on web newspapers , u can't guarantee the truth & honesty either of the writer's identity nor of the news displayed , besides there are invadors who can put everything upside down.
May 11th, 2009 10:20 am ET
WE NEVER BELIEVED THE NEWSPAPERS – ONLINE OR OTHERWISE.
So here's a very simple BENCHTEST for them;
PUBLISH THE FOLLOWING FULLY-BELIEVABLE HEADLINE
PURGATORY NEEDS A FACELIFT!
May 11th, 2009 11:01 am ET
Due to competition and adverisement, Newspapers will be free near future as in India this practice started. When printed copies will be free then how we assume that Web Newspaper will charge the reader.
May 11th, 2009 11:15 am ET
Online newspapers are e-dinosaurs compared to CNN.COM.
No other website can cover the news as well as CNN.
You can even collate video evidence globally via iReport.
Does anyother multi-media offering have the clout CNN has?
Look at news.bbc.co.uk. Have you ever seen so much clutter?
Online newspapers & many online news broadcasters just haven't got what it takes.
SPONSORSHIP SAYS EVERYTHING CNN.
TEAMWORK SAYS EVERYTHING CNN.
DISCIPLINE SAYS EVERYTHING CNN & CNN DISCIPLINE REFLECTS WELL.
CNN – Say Goodbye to the e-dinosaurs for me!
May 11th, 2009 2:41 pm ET
I think, this is a crazy idea, in internet, the information is free! If someone try to sell newsspaper's information will broke. lol
Have millions, billions of site whith free information.
May 11th, 2009 5:48 pm ET
free? nuttin is free in this con-ass world, my friend...unless u r an idiot.
May 12th, 2009 4:32 pm ET
Before they start asking to be paid for everyday news. I think they should first convince us by showing us the "product". Then, and only then, will the next step be taken.
May 12th, 2009 5:59 pm ET
Of course not. and there will always be free news websites online anyways... like cnn.com right?
May 12th, 2009 6:19 pm ET
If Rupert Murdoch had his way we'd be paying for the air we breathe whilst paying for the news we're reading at the same time.. hell will have frozen over for quite some time before people pay for it!
May 13th, 2009 8:36 am ET
Yes, I would–if you live where you can't get papers at a decent price (if at all) I would love to be able to pay and get them online. US citizen currently living in Germany.
May 13th, 2009 7:10 pm ET
NO will never pay to read the news online. Never did buy news papers either. Why do we have cable TV with so many news channel?
May 15th, 2009 8:47 pm ET
YES. I would certainly pay for THE NEW YORK TIMES.
How much does the New York Times sundays paper weigh?
2,3 kg. Well, can any reader read all that? No. What did the indians do in their news business? They administrated smoke rings. Did not cost any trees at all. Journalistic paper words are written in water. Long live the internet!
News! News! News! Somebody benefits from peoples hunger for news! Where is the tobin tax on news? It could be named The Tax of Catastrophies.
May 16th, 2009 10:11 pm ET
I will not pay for such content on the net. So Quest will you?
May 18th, 2009 4:54 pm ET
why pay for a paper when the library has a free online database of newspapers? the hard copy is good for coupons.
Welcome! Join us for a behind-the-scenes look at CNN.com. We don't just want to talk about what we're doing, we want to have a conversation with you to see what you think. We need your help as we continue to evolve the way news is delivered online.