Hacker News Reader

Comment by telltruth | Hacker News Reader

WaPo had been doing great reporting these days. I just don't know how much money they lose in ad revenue by being behind paywall. Any summery of the article?

View on HN

Sorry, if you think they are doing great reporting, isn't it worth to pay for a subscription? It is dirt cheap for Prime members

No it isn't because there are other dozens of such outlets there. I can't buy dozens of subscriptions for everyone doing good reporting. Either they have to come up with some subscription bundle that covers large number of outlets (like Netflix or Google Music) or rely on ad revenues. I just don't know why these people don't think of this and just assume people would just swipe away their credit cards for new subscriptions.

How many newspapers do you need to read in order to be well informed? I subscribe to two newspapers and a magazine. I don’t feel like adding more would give me additional value. Surely you wouldn’t feel the need to read every newspaper in existence to feel well informed. I encourage you to subscribe to one or two that you feel provide a valuable product to you.

If there was a way to get a single subscription for access to every article linked from HN (whether it be from NYT, WaPo, WSJ, or whatever) I might pay for that. I don't think most people read a newspaper front to back anymore.

“I want to buy some Lucky Charms but I only want to pay for the marshmallows because I don’t eat the other bits.”

“I want to rent this apartment but I don’t use the oven so I dont want to pay for that portion.”

“I want a whopper from BK on a bun from Mickey D’s, And I only want to pay for one burger with that combination.”

“I want iOS on my new Galaxy.”

I’m sorry for mocking you but I find your stipulation for paying for journalistic content absurd. However, this is not the first time I’ve heard similar conditions requested for things that are not the speaker’s to place conditions on. I’m wondering where this line of thinking comes from. I seem to hear it from the younger generation (20s/early 30s). (I’m not tying to be purposefully ageist or overgeneralize.)

I didn't request anything. I merely stated some conditions under which I would feel inclined to pay for journalistic content. Nowhere did I say that anyone is obliged to create such conditions for me.

Just like I don't buy lucky charms because I don't like all the things in there. That doesn't mean I think they're depriving me of something to which I'm entitled. It just means they're not getting my money.

I disagree. Very few outlets are as high quality as WaPo in my opinion.

Do you feel that quality journalism should be free to you? Did your parents subscribe to a newspaper when you were growing up? Not sure why one would feel entitled to a work product without compensating the creator for it when it clearly has value to that consumer.

1) Publishing and distribution costs are far less online than with print.

2) News organizations have a long history of generating revenue by advertisement, and this is especially the case for many highly trafficked websites.

3) The owners of the newspaper benefit from a wider reach, because it allows them to better influence the public.

4) News websites, in many cases, either used to be free or still are.

5) The price of a full subscription may not be fair for someone who only wants to be able to read the occasional article linked from HN/reddit/friends.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com