Readers would pay for online news, study shows

as though they aren't paid well enough via marketing & advertising? puh-leez.

Since it's inception, the internet has been free. Merchants are one thing. They pay for their advertising and that's as it should be. Purchases can be made at e-commerce sites and this really opens up the worlds marketplace to any individual with a computer. But blood attracts sharks. The sheer volume of traffic on the internet attracts blood suckers. They're sniffing around trying to find some way to cash in on this - at our expense. We should resist any effort, from any direction - and I do mean any direction - to extract money from what these two legged sharks consider a bonanza. Let them work for a living. If you have a product or service to market or if you think the exposure possible on the internet would help then you should definitely do that and expect to pay a bit for it. The marketplace works. Google charges for AdWords & 2 other sales programs they have going. These funds are used to finance all the free services that google offers to anyone that wants to use it. That's the way we should keep it. Lock the sharks out. No govt regulation. ISP's allowed to provide one single service at one single price - NOT tiered service where if you want the thing to actually work you have to pay more for it. Keep the internet free. It's the best thing to come along this century. Don't let the sharks ruin it.

48% are really, really, really stupid people who don't read news when it's free.

I'd say more people would probably be willing to pay Murdoch NOT to put out any news.

Not me, but you have to consider who the readers whould be.

He is even taking over National Geographic I am sad to say.

Where do I sign up? I know you need the money Murdoch, so I'll help ya out. Anyway I can! Who wouldn't want to pay to hear your preacher of conspiracy theories, aka Glenn Beck. Spew out his ignorance, or for that matter, all your FOX "News" pundits.
(Sigh. As I roll my eyes.)

Well then I'm afraid your study is wrong ASSHOLES. Cus I won't pay for online news. In fact I'll go out of my way to illegally download online news at ThePirateBay once you dickfaces start making news sites paysites.

If I'm not going to pay for my porn, what makes you think I'm going to pay for my news?

Haven't they already tried this? And no one was buying, so they stopped charging.

I will be glad when he takes NewsCorp sites off Google so I won't accidently click on one and realize after the fact that I generated a "hit" for the FoxNews website. Makes me cringe every time that happens.

MURDOCH!!!! Get your grubby hands off my news.

Rupert would charge his mother if he could. Bottom line is that newspapers need to offer someting that is so valuable that advertisers will want to be there and pay for it. The concept of people paying for news is akin to people paying for satellite radio where we are watching that medium die a slow death. Rupert can watch his stock drop like Sirrus radio.

you know people already pay for newspapers, etc... but with the onset of free music and already free news n TV (although we pay for cable) who wants to pay more for more fake news?

Really they think we are that dumb to actually PAY for corporate owned mainstream news bullshit? I wouldn't even read that garbage for FREE. Complete clueless morons.

heh, idiots.

http://current.com/

sounds like bullshit to me... that's the entire appeal of the internet, instant access at your fingertips for FREE. With the exception of current and maybe one other I don't even go to sites that want me to register, much less pay.

he's actually going to *charge* people for that garbage his stations spew?

well fuck him

And if you believe that one then I have an investment for you!

I think that the real difference between what people can get for free and what they may be willing to pay for is in value added content.

Simple news is easy to get, and is aggregated in numerous places just like Current where we are now. Nobody's going to pay for that.

On the other hand, a news "magazine", like Time, where they do unique reporting on subjects that are of interest, but take more work to turn into a story, may be more successful at getting people to pay. Say for an exclusive expose' into political corruption, or modern versions of slavery, for instance. These are things I'd be willing to pay for, if I was assured that the publisher was a quality source that I trusted to create good, unique content. Time, for instance has an over 70 year reputation for excellent photography along with top, in depth reporting.

It all depends upon how it's done, and how much they want to charge, as well as how much of a reputation the site would be able to garner for good reporting.

Not at all an easy thing to do.

Readers would pay for online news, study shows. This may be due to the stupidity of the readers.

I wouldn't pay Rupert Murdoch for his fascist bullshit

I don't even use the free news sites that force me to register. Besides, online news can easily be paid for by advertisements. That's why alot of sites spread content out over multiple pages. It increases the click count.

People have stopped paying for a newspaper subscription for the sole reason that online news is free... adding a price tag would entirely defeat the purpose.

In unrelated news, 48% of British and American consumers don't know how to use the Internet.

It wouldn't be effective anyway. the news would out online in other media that R.M. doesn't own.

I would sure get a lot more done, because I'm too cheap to pay for it. I might consider paying for electronic versions of print publications that I suscribe to now, but not as many.

Did they break down the figures into age range? I can't think of many peers (18-25) actually paying for their news, whether or not you believe anything Murdoch produces can be called that. In the long run, it's not a supportable trend, especially when it's so easy to find equivalent information for free. Only big-name journalists actually believe the bullshit that their provided service is more reliable than smaller news outlets, or even some bloggers. But then I'm glad that this should be a significant step towards the death of big media.

Yes 48% of consumers would pay for online news. Unfortunately for Rupert, guess what group his Koolaid drinkers are in? Bigots who love money are typically not in the "oh yeah, I'll be happy to pay for something that I got for free" group.

don't our internet access fees count?

I've never even paid for porn in my life, why the fuck would I pay for something that even MORE readily available from hundreds of thousands of sources?

The problem here is that Murdock doesn't not know the definition of "news."

If you pay, say $10 for news, you get news not worth 10 cents

I'd sooner pay for a ticket to H E double sticks than for that low life news. He can go there all by heself.

people shouldn't have to pay for the news... just your opinions on it... so they don't have to think and form their own.

What? People don't even pay for porn anymore!

DON"T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT, CURRENT...

I would pay for opinion, like reading what certain guy in the Wall Street Journal has to say about business in general, but I would not pay for news.

I understand paying for something like Foreign Policy Magazine or National Geographic... but simple NEWS?

of course they would Rupert...but your stations aren't providing news.

The Net must stay Neutral. I think poor people have a right to know what's going on in the world, too.