This article should be available to everyone.
WAPO won’t let us in w/o a subscription. Figures.
Neither will ADG. Your point is?
I logged out and viewed the article. Hmmm.
Here is one thing noted in the article:
“We have very strong, serious concerns about the potential for covid to affect athletes cardiovascularly,” said Michael Emery, co-director of the sports cardiology department at the Cleveland Clinic. “When you look at covid in general, there seems to be a higher predilection for involvement with the heart than about any other virus we’ve seen.”
Jeff, the Corona Virus coverage from WaPo is free. I guess, for some reason, this is not under that umbrella.
I can’t get into Wapo for anything.
Been a subscriber with ADG for many years. Answer your question?
No it doesn’t. The point is newspapers, large and small, make you pay to read. The ones who didn’t are going out of business, regardless of political orientation or anything else.
Whoa. You’re a trip…
What I’ve noticed on the WaPo website…
There is a Live Coronavirus Updates section where you can read portions of dozens of articles. There is a “More” link at the bottom if each one where you can read the entire article … IF you’re a subscriber.
There are countless other articles that, after 3 free reads, require a subscription to read any of the material. I have found you can get around this by clearing out cache/cookies.
I got it all free. Got an ad with it but read the article with no problem.
That’s right. Newspapers should give their product away. After all, it doesn’t cost anything to gather the news. And reporters don’t deserve to get paid for their work. It’s not like they have families to support or anything. Oh, except Clay and Dudley, et al. They’re “good ones.” It’s OK if they get paid for their labor.
Not disagreeing that they have a product and do not have to give it away, but wondering if the price of the newspaper is the cost of circulation and the only real revenue is advertising. No real additional cost for circulation on the internet, so if they track the hits and have advertising content on the internet, could it not be additional advertising rather than lost revenue?
I could be wrong but I think most online companies get their money through advertising. The only ones that require subscription usually have costs that exceed advertising revenue. Not saying anyone shouldn’t be paid but charging subscription is usually to support a deficiency, I.e. insufficient advertising traffic.
First, IT is not free. And there are many other costs involved in putting out a newspaper - or any news product - that have not gone away. Second, advertising has been the lifeblood of newspapers, but it has fallen off a cliff in the last 20 years and has pretty much died during the lockdown. Online advertising rates are a fraction of print rates and do not come near replacing that lost revenue, not even close. So paid subscriptions have become vital/essential to cash flow. Amazing that people will pay $4 for a cup of coffee but a few bucks to help assure an informed populace is out of the question and worth getting downright belligerent about, present company excepted.
I subscribe to a few sites. I’m pretty cheap, but I get it. I subscribe to the Demozette (using my own iPad). I also subscribe to The Athletic and D1Baseball along with the WaPo site and my home newspaper (my problem with that is that they only put out the “Daily” twice/week.)
I try to take most things with a grain of salt, but I do want to be informed.
Did not say IT was free, but most likely the on-line information is not redone, but rather downloaded from the content that was used to build the paper, so likely already incurred from publishing the paper. Not trying to get into a peeing contest with anyone, but just suggesting there could be an advantage linking on line views with advertising revenues. If advertising revenues have fallen for newspapers, that is unfortunate, but also possibly a statement as well.
This topic was automatically closed after 30 days. New replies are no longer allowed.