This is a pet peeve of mine.
Many newspapers and magazines have condensed their articles with the addition, "to read the rest of the story go to www whatever", or "to learn more about this, go to www whatever". The assumption that everyone has internet service, or will truck themselves to a library to read the rest on a computer, is far from accurate.
There is nothing more frustrating than to have a link sent with an article from an online newspaper only to learn that I have to pay for the subscription in order to read it. I refuse to subscribe for the one or two articles that may be of interest in an out of town paper.
I understand that the newspapers are in a financial bind and they are using their online service to add to the bottom line. No doubt they are getting more than enough subscriptions, but the won't be adding me to their list.
That said, I would have no objection to paying to print or save an article that I wanted to keep.
Online is the only way I get my news - well, besides when I watch WGRZ's 11 o'clock news. I have RSS feeds to several news places (including TheBatavian.com!!!) and check them quite frequently.
I would pay to get my news online, but only from certain people. Google News - no. TheBatavian.com - yes. The Daily News - yes. MSN.com - no. So on and so forth. I wouldn't pay a fortune, though. It isn't expensive to host a website and to pay someone to update it 24/7. (I only know this because my husband runs his own tech business.) I would maybe pay $5.99/mo, but not much more. With $5.99/mo, the news company would make a HUGE profit... as long as they could get online subscribers.
I understand that some people do not know how to use computers and some people can not afford computers... and some people just don't want computers. Unfortunately, technology is going to squash the printed papers within the next 10 years or so. It is just going to be the way it works.
Neat how new technology, or technology in general, is not <i>always</i> a good thing, huh?
This is a pet peeve of
This is a pet peeve of mine.
Many newspapers and magazines have condensed their articles with the addition, "to read the rest of the story go to www whatever", or "to learn more about this, go to www whatever". The assumption that everyone has internet service, or will truck themselves to a library to read the rest on a computer, is far from accurate.
There is nothing more frustrating than to have a link sent with an article from an online newspaper only to learn that I have to pay for the subscription in order to read it. I refuse to subscribe for the one or two articles that may be of interest in an out of town paper.
I understand that the newspapers are in a financial bind and they are using their online service to add to the bottom line. No doubt they are getting more than enough subscriptions, but the won't be adding me to their list.
That said, I would have no objection to paying to print or save an article that I wanted to keep.
Online is the only way I get
Online is the only way I get my news - well, besides when I watch WGRZ's 11 o'clock news. I have RSS feeds to several news places (including TheBatavian.com!!!) and check them quite frequently.
I would pay to get my news online, but only from certain people. Google News - no. TheBatavian.com - yes. The Daily News - yes. MSN.com - no. So on and so forth. I wouldn't pay a fortune, though. It isn't expensive to host a website and to pay someone to update it 24/7. (I only know this because my husband runs his own tech business.) I would maybe pay $5.99/mo, but not much more. With $5.99/mo, the news company would make a HUGE profit... as long as they could get online subscribers.
I understand that some people do not know how to use computers and some people can not afford computers... and some people just don't want computers. Unfortunately, technology is going to squash the printed papers within the next 10 years or so. It is just going to be the way it works.
Neat how new technology, or technology in general, is not <i>always</i> a good thing, huh?