Are you paying for on-line access to the News?

[disisus]

While I understand why on-line news organizations feel they need to charge to survive, the way it's going you're going to end up paying a substantial amount of money just to read various news articles with each paper/organization charging you a monthly fee.

For example:

The Vancouver Sun: $7.95 month

Ottawa Citizen $9.95 month

Globe and Mail $19.99 month

They all offer 10-15 free articles at first. I was about to sign up for the Globe and Mail but then it looked like I was giving them permission to automatically charge my credit card 19.99 month after signing up for a .99 cent trial. That's way too much. I don't think a a hard copy newspaper subscription cost that much. If they want the only readers to be affluent then I guess they're on the right track.

What do you think of this growing trend?

These are my thoughts on this:

The average reader is not going to be able to afford to subscribe to 10-20 different news organizations every month at $5.-$20. a pop for every news outlet. That could add up to hundreds of dollars a month just to read the news from various perspectives. That would be the end of Google top news if you can't read or afford to read them. We'll be back to the good old 50's era where you got your news source from one source. The one paper delivered to you.

While I hate the pop-up ads, I'd rather have those than be limited to news by what I can afford to buy.

[nuvistors]

These  sites use cookies to keep track of the number of free articles you have read.

Put them on the  restricted listed so they cannot set cookies and you can continue reading .

[disisus]

I'll give that a try.

Thanks.

[art-in-the-making]

I think it is slowly being understood by the media that they are never going to build up an online subscriber base. I don't know I never pay as there is always way too much to read without bothering with the paywall stuff.

Recently a couple of Canadian independents have tried something different, going the crowdfunding route.

Canadalandshow.com (ex-CBCer Jesse Brown) did it on the newer "Patreon" site. Pretty much a one man show, Canadaland is excellent and I believe has several thousand $/mo in ongoing pledges.

Ricochet.media went through Indiegogo I believe and raised a fair amount ($75K? could be totally off, I forget) a couple of months ago. Ricochet is a different model - bilingual and national in scope. Obviously the kitty isn't going to go too far so not too sure on what their ongoing strategy will be.

Frankly I think the big unions and professional organizations in education and medicine, etc. should dedicate funding to public media to counteract the corporate controlled biased media that serves us so poorly at present and supported the Conservative party in the last election at a ration of about 29 out of 31 major newspapers!

Without even mentioning that the telecoms, Rogers, Bell and a couple others own the lions share of the media and other content production in the country. This to a far greater extent than any other country in the world. I would say it's a joke but it's not even funny!

[pierrelebel]

"This to a far greater extent than any other country in the world."

Is it?  Really?

When one takes into consideration the relatively small population of Canada (only 35,000,000) and compares to other industrialized countries with double, triple or ten times the population, I frankly do not see how we could have strong sectors without a strong presence in this very small marketplace.

The option to let foreign businesses (usually Americans) take over does not really appeal to me.

[valve37]

"Without even mentioning that the telecoms, Rogers, Bell and a couple others own the lions share of the media and other content production in the country. This to a far greater extent than any other country in the world. I would say it's a joke but it's not even funny!"

I suppose you don't own BCE stock, most do whether shares or embedded in mutual fund units. BCE's aqusistion of Astral Media has helped push the common stock to over $54 this past week. Copeland one smart CEO!

As I recall at the time of the CRTC hearings you objected violently.

[art-in-the-making]

"This to a far greater extent than any other country in the world."

Is it?  Really?

Yes, it is. The degree of content production controlled by telecoms (who control means of distribution) is something ridiculous like 30% higher in Canada than in the next highest country which if I recall correctly was Japan. Of course talking about advanced economies. I would have to search for the link but it is out there.

Regarding the size of the country, etc. I would disagree. I think we got in this pickle only because it was allowed so of course corporations will take advantage. Look at all the small countries Switzerland, Netherlands, Finland, etc. etc., all have their own independent production set ups. Even Quebec.

Valve, always fishing for personal information. Conservatives can have difficulty understanding that someone would argue a principle based on right-wrong fair-unfair rather than me-me-me!

[pierrelebel]

" I would disagree...."

This is the thing I like best about this country.  We all have the right to take position on any subject then to agree and/or disagree as we all look at things from slightly different perspective.

It does not get any better than that.

[valve37]

However Pierre some would prefer totalitarianism, the Russian way.

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

I never pay and never sign up. But in the end, there are very few worth believing. Nearly every major news source has either an agenda or they are politically attached to some party. Neither are reporters what they use to be.

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers"

. ~Thomas Jefferson

[art-in-the-making]

I agree wholeheartedly that this is an ideal to cherish. ...and, just to follow through with Pierre's suggestion of looking at the subject from a slightly different perspective......

This ideal is never "permanent" (and never perfect). We don't achieve freedom of speech or freedom of the press once and for all. Unfortunately, these freedoms are constantly under attack frontally, clandestinely, from all directions.

Just as one example, Canada's once envied status as a leading beacon of press freedom in the world has fallen dramatically over the past few years - from 5th down to 20th.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/adam-kingsmith/canada-freedom-of-press_b_2946418.html

If the Postmedia buyout of Sun Media is allowed then a huge portion of the news in the country will be controlled by one entity. How can there possibly be any freedom in that?

Other examples: the muzzling of Canadian scientists under the Conservative government is well documented. Not to mention the entire civil service being under full PMO lock-down - with any word coming out of the government required to be channeled through Harper's spin-meisters. The situation has actually deteriorated a long way in a short time.

The gagging of Conservative MPs by the PMO is epic. Conservatives avoid all-candidate meetings with a passion and many, such as Brent Rathgeber and Inky Mark are forced out of the party specifically because they wished to voice their opinions. Audience members at most Conservative events are individually screened and vetted specifically to prevent any non-Conservative from exercising freedom of speech in the public political arena.

But probably the most concerning is censorship by the corporatocracy. Corporations are now taking the somewhat common sense "don't drive a Ford if you work for GM" principle to the most frightening extremes. It is now considered "almost" normal that companies spy on their employees or prospective employees on facebook and social media. Freedom of speech therefore strictly limited by what is considered appropriate by employers, present or future.

Google drives around and photographs every single house on the planet (except those of the very rich in their gated communities) and posts them on the internet. CCTV cameras popping up on every street corner in cities around the world... We've "almost" come to accept that privacy has ceased to exist. Therefore anything you say or do is open to be exploited for any type of coercion imaginable.

The NSA harvests and warehouses every single word communicated on the planet - which, even now, is probably ample to build a phony case against practically anyone - for practically any transgression, real, imagined or staged. With imminent increases in computing power here is no guessing where this could all lead.

So, enjoy your "freedom" of speech but...

[valve37]

With all that Art tell us where you would rather live?

[art-in-the-making]

Valve the country is still hanging on by a thread. If we can only get rid of Harper soon enough.

[rose-dee]

---

@art-in-the-making wrote:

Valve the country is still hanging on by a thread. If we can only get rid of Harper soon enough.

---

While I agree with you that one of the biggest concerns we (all of us) have is the exponential rise in personal privacy invasion, I doubt it will make much difference which leader is in power, except that the corporate interests pushing and pulling behind the scenes may differ. 

These days, when you are voting for a particular leader, you're essentially voting for the corporate and multi-national interests to whom he or she either is, or ultimately will be, beholden to some extent or another.  In truth, I'm not sure it was ever otherwise, but today those corporate puppet-masters are global in reach and affect the lives of millions if not billions of people.

Children today are so comfortably "wired" into the internet and social media that it's second nature to them. What they may not recognize by the time they are adults is that they will be have been fully conditioned to accept the open, two-way door that is the internet, and to accordingly accept increasing privacy invasion -- let's call it perhaps privacy intrusion -- as a necessary adjunct to that technology.  This will doubtless make it far easier for governments (read: corporations) to introduce more invasive and permanent means of tracking, monitoring, recording, overseeing and ultimately judging, people's daily activities. 

What I fear most is that the convergence of heightened technological development, a passive population, and massive, powerful, global corporate interests will fundamentally change life for most people.  I hesitate to invoke the 1984 analogy, but I think we're pretty close.  

The only element that has been missing to date in this scenario is a population disinterested in what happens beyond their immediate sphere of reference.  For my generation -- who still remembers a world without computers -- the sting of online control and privacy intrusion may still seem acute, but it's today's kids I wonder about. 

One of the younger members of the powerful Rockefeller family was asked by a reporter friend a few years ago what more he could possibly want or need in life, with all the wealth and power he already possessed.  It was a personal inquiry of a friend, not a reporter digging for information.  Yet he was so taken aback by the chilling response that he recorded it: "We want complete control, and technology will give it to us". 

How this ties into newspapers (to get back to the original subject) is that they used to be -- at least the best of them -- our collective conscience.  They often shone bright light into very dark places to show us what was really going on.  When those voices are fettered through directives from conglomerate owners, or when the bulk of the media is in very few hands, we as a nation lose the ability to openly hear differing, unbiased, even unpopular opinions.  Anyone who believes the major media are free and open to present independent opinions these days is fooling themselves.  In fact, it may be the little local "subversive" papers, the ones who owe nothing to anybody, who are the only bastions of true free speech left.  

[valve37]

Great post Rose. Being politically correct I believe plays into what we read these days and not what the writer would really like to express. Like your reference to the little local "subversive" papers. I like reading the responses that sometimes follow media articles and occasionally add one myself.     

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

"We want complete control, and technology will give it to us".

And he's far from the only person in a wealthy family, or group, that feels this way. These people, meaning the wealthy and powerful, live in a different world than most of us. Their mindset is "those with the most toys wins". Their egos and narcissism rule their lives. Everyone else are just pawns, 'collateral damage' and exist for their purposes and who they occasionally throw a bone to in order to keep us pacified.

1984? Yes you're not far out. Orwell's dates were a little off. Fahrenheit 451 is coming but we're being slowly lead into it. The government watches everything we say, what we read, where we go, what we buy, who our friends are. Even Harper wants to introduce legislation that if anyone has 'terrorist' sympathies then they can be investigated. But how will that be translated? Are we heading for another McCarthy era? Personally I think so.It won't be as blatant as the past, it will be more subtle, more covert.

The person who will be truly free in the future is the person who is totally off the 'grid' and that can be done. 

[dove3ducks]

All the Major News Stations give any person Free News Alerts daily  from any where in the World .

[rose-dee]

---

@prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil wrote:

The person who will be truly free in the future is the person who is totally off the 'grid' and that can be done. 

---

I completely agree, but I think it will end up being a much more subtle and insidious process, step by step, culminating in complete acceptance as part of the usual way of doing things, like a hospital putting a plastic band on a child when he or she is born -- just implant that chip and you're catalogued and trackable for life.  

Without it, no employment, no income whatsoever, no bank account, no home, no way to purchase food or other supplies, no medical care, or any of the other things that go with a comfortable modern life.  Youngsters are already getting accustomed to the excitement of the idea of having a Dick Tracy style wrist computer and the absence of "inconvenience" in life.  Convenience and comfort will rule.

It will be a very harsh, harried life for those on the outside of the system.  Native people (and maybe groups like the Amish) may fare better than the rest because they know how to exist on the planet without such things and can live without the techno-world, but many may have forgotten how to do it by then.  My generation will probably be the last to resist, but may eventually choose to acquiesce rather than starve on the street. 

It does make me sad when I see a whole bunch of school kids more fascinated and enthralled by new technology in a classroom than by a new insect or plant they've never seen before.  There will come a day soon when a whole generation of children grows up having little contact with, or knowledge of the natural world, and where the isolation we call modern technological life becomes the accepted norm.  Then they'll happily accept that little blinking light in their arms.  Orwell only saw the half of it... 

[valve37]

The time of the Beast Rose?