Thursday, 8 July 2010

Paying for it

Dominic Ponsford, of the Press Gazette, has written an interesting critique of The Times new website. I haven't got a clue if his points are valid as I haven't paid to access it. But that doesn't stop me having a view, as usual.

It's not that I can't, and it's not that I don't think Murdoch hasn't got a perfect right to milk us for even more money if he wants to. But why, when I can get similar news content on various other sites, would I part with £60 (or is it £100? Could check, can't be arsed). Much better to rely on blogs running re-hashed, half-baked stories and peddling ill-thought out opinions to get the truth.

I shall be fascinated to see their webstats for their first month behind the paywall. I wonder by just how much they will risk inflating them to keep advertisers happy.


  1. Oh dear. You've avoided the unasked question.

    Murdoch too has been asking why would anyone pay for his news when there are more reliable and free sources on the internet. His solution? Close the competitors down. Number one in his list is So expect soon that the Conservative government will announce that as a "cost cutting exercise" the BBC will cut the news it provides on the internet. OFCOM will go too, so that Murdoch can say what the hell he likes, unchallenged.

    Of course, this will be payback for "kingmaker" Murdoch getting his papers behind Cameron and getting him the keys for Number 10.

  2. Of course I avoided it, it is not my job to point out the truth is it? No you are quite right. This is all to do with Murdoch removing the BBC from the picture and Camseron's complicity on that.

    Did mention that I hate the BBC?