… so what? The internet business model of giving away your product for free online was never going to work, and a lot of newspapers went out of business trying to make it work. Before the internet, if you wanted your local newspaper like the News Journal, you paid for it. And it is going to be that way again.
I don’t understand the notion that the public shouldn’t pay for news. If we don’t pay for it, who will? The government? What if you need the government investigated? What if what the government is doing is wrong? Do you think a reporter or a editor or a publisher won’t feel pressure from the government to not report on a certain story, especially if the government is directly involved in the chain of command at a publication?
Corporations? What if there is a horrible story about a product made by that corporation that killed or injured people? What if the story or reporter is critical of something the corporation has done? You think the reporter will stay for long? General Electric and Keith Olbermann?
No, we, the public, have to pay for it if we want good, unvarnished, untainted, unbiased news. If the public demands free or low cost news than it will get shitty or low cost news. Or in other words, the News Journal or any publication by Gannett over the last several years. But if we want to hold the government or politicians or big business to account, we have to pay for it. And if the News Journal or any other publication doesn’t offer the bang for our buck, then we stop paying for it.
But having the public pay for its local news means that the public now has control over what is covered and what is reported, and it is the only real way. So I look on this decision as a chance for the News Journal to improve. So I will pay for the News Journal online. And if the News Journal doesn’t improve, I will stop paying for the News Journal.