Sunday, January 15, 2012

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Now Charging for Online Access

The above image (click to enlarge) appeared on my monitor this morning as I perused JSOnline articles. You get 20 free articles a month now. If you want more than that, you must subscribe. A subscription to their print paper automatically entitles you to online access. If you want online access only, it's $4.29 a month.

As a Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper noted for its investigative journalism, I think $4.29 a month is a bargain for the Journal Sentinel. As a resident of Racine who exhausts his entire income just to stay alive, I can't afford it. So it goes.

Will the Journal Times be next? Would you pay for online access to either one?


kkdither said...

I think it makes very good business sense, and the pricing seems fair... and NO, I would not, under any circumstances pay for the Journal Times.

OrbsCorbs said...

I read JSOnline. I'll use up 20 articles in 2 or 3 days. I may have to pay for online access, but something has to give. Charlie needs to get a job.

OrbsCorbs said...

Oh, and I wouldn't pay for the Journal Times, either. I think if they tried, they'd lose lose their online advertising base.

kkdither said...

News is everywhere, and it still can be gotten cheap. I use this site to check in on the news from papers from around the world. It is helpful to see if what we are being fed is really what is important. It also helps to brush up on my language skills:

OrbsCorbs said...

Thanks for the link, kk. Now I'll spend even more time online scanning news.

Something else to be said about paying for online access: say good-bye to your anonymity. Once you've logged in, you'll be associated with whatever account you used to pay for the access.

I use Google news a lot. I also check Reuters, Yahoo, and CNN news online. They're still all free.

Toad said...

Orb's, Yes I would. Unlike the Green Bay Packers, whom I watch on TV for free (pretty much) and expect It to stay that way, and thus I don't have the right to complain about how they play, because It's really not costing me anything to watch. Newspapers rely on subscriptions to survive through advertising. If nobody buys the paper for home delivery, but lots of people are getting a lot of information they need on the Internet for free now, the advertisers should be able to understand It's pretty hard to use their business from 160 miles away or more and not advertise. If we want to continue to have a city newspaper of sorts, I see It as a necessary evil. I will however expect the paper to be COMPLETELY NON-BIASED In all of their writings. NO more JT Editorial Department, only public opinion. I think a small charge would be fine. The Journal-Sentinal wants $4.95, the JT should be worth $1.50?

Why Not? said...

We pay for a subscription for the JS, my husband has a kindle and gets the JS delivered to it everyday, but that came at a cost of 6 dollars a month I think.. I can't remember for sure.. I like the access to local news.. As for the JT... hmmmm.. i think I would have a hard time paying for it..

hale-bopp said...

As much as I like my morning paper, it is all heading online. Most papers do not publish every story in the paper online to try and keep value in the subscription.

The New York Times does something similar. Orbs, you might try some anonymous browsing to get around the limit, but you didn't hear it from me!

Paying for lots of sites is not feasible and could add up quick. The more that charge, the choosier I would have to be.

I don't think either the JT or JS would make my list (the JS more just because I don't live in the area anymore...if I lived there, it would).