Freep, News Price

[poobert]

Because you refuse to pay $3.00 is why print media is dying. It's not dead.

We need your investment to put out the stories that need to be told. Journalism is not free.

Yeah but it should be a decent product. The Freep has been terrible for almost 20 years.

I subscribe to the NYT and the Ann Arbor News, but when I lived in the Detroit I actually dropped the Freep subscription because it was unreadable. One day the entire international section was a single article about Michael Jackson [[ripped from the AP, of course). Unacceptable.

New York Times subscriptions are up, and they offer at least quality reporting and writing.

[Zads07]

Yeah but it should be a decent product. The Freep has been terrible for almost 20 years.

I subscribe to the NYT and the Ann Arbor News, but when I lived in the Detroit I actually dropped the Freep subscription because it was unreadable. One day the entire international section was a single article about Michael Jackson [[ripped from the AP, of course). Unacceptable.

New York Times subscriptions are up, and they offer at least quality reporting and writing.

You do understand that newspapers, most at least, have a subscription with the Associated Press, so newspapers will run AP stories a lot. Mine does.

Also, we can disagree on whether or not it's a good or a bad product, but what makes it bad, really?

Because although I will defend newspapers until my dying day, I want to know what it would take for readers to pay for content. What makes a newspaper a good product or a bad product?

[SyGolden48236]

Because although I will defend newspapers until my dying day, I want to know what it would take for readers to pay for content. What makes a newspaper a good product or a bad product?

A good start to putting out a good product would be actual spelling and grammar checking, and I do not mean merely hitting F7 on the keyboard. Does anyone proofread anymore?

I read both papers, almost cover to cover, every day and every day I see countless grammar and spelling errors that a fourth grader would know not to make.

I also read stories that are not at all cohesive. Also, I often see quotes from people who are not identified in the article, such as "... and Johnson said ...." But nowhere beforehand does the article identify who "Johnson" is.

Reporters today have gotten very lazy and that does not apply strictly to print media.

[Zads07]

A good start to putting out a good product would be actual spelling and grammar checking, and I do not mean merely hitting F7 on the keyboard. Does anyone proofread anymore?

I read both papers, almost cover to cover, every day and every day I see countless grammar and spelling errors that a fourth grader would know not to make.

I also read stories that are not at all cohesive. Also, I often see quotes from people who are not identified in the article, such as "... and Johnson said ...." But nowhere beforehand does the article identify who "Johnson" is.

Reporters today have gotten very lazy and that does not apply strictly to print media.

It's not reporters, it's the lack of copy editors. Those jobs have been slashed by the hundreds over the course of the past 10 year.

Yes, we reporters make mistakes. We are human and it's normal. But the workload we have now is insane. That's not to excuse the mistakes, because we don't like making them, but you have to understand that there are less of us now to catch those mistakes.

It's not lazy, it's overworked.

But I get what you are saying.

Investing in papers means the ability to hire more and to lessen the workload.

[Meddle]

I want to know what it would take for readers to pay for content.

I don't consider that I've ever paid for the news content. I consider news to be a public service, supported by advertisers. I paid for the convenience of home delivery. Remember, everything in a printed newspaper happened yesterday. At least with TV news, I could find out about things that happened today, then read about them in more detail tomorrow.

But notice, I said 'more detail'. That was when there were real reporters who went to incident scenes and gathered information first hand by talking to witnesses and officials. If you read three different papers [[which there were back then), you got details in three different ways because the reporters wrote their own stories. They didn't copy and paste off a link they clicked.

Today, I can hit five or more different 'news' websites and read exactly the same story, word for word, mistake for mistake.


I will NEVER pay for content on any website. I will never subscribe to any site that throws up a paywall.

[wazootyman]

I subscribe to the Sunday edition for a few reasons:

• I like to read a physical paper on the weekend [[I wouldn't have or take the time during the week). It gets me away from a screen.
• I believe in supporting local journalism. Is the paper as good as it once was? I don't think so. But I understand the reality of the situation; without funding, it can't exist. I know that the reasons for the decline are complicated. But I also know that if nobody pays for the paper, it's only going to get worse.
• The weekly cost of offset by, of all things, the coupons I clip. I get some sense of satisfaction showing up to my locally-owned grocer and using coupons I clipped.

I'm in my late 30's, and probably not the norm. But to think of a future where everyone gets their news from social media and TMZ...well, it scares the hell out of me.

I also subscribe to Crain's - which is a great paper, and well worth the annual fee.

[Zads07]

I don't consider that I've ever paid for the news content. I consider news to be a public service, supported by advertisers. I paid for the convenience of home delivery. Remember, everything in a printed newspaper happened yesterday. At least with TV news, I could find out about things that happened today, then read about them in more detail tomorrow.

But notice, I said 'more detail'. That was when there were real reporters who went to incident scenes and gathered information first hand by talking to witnesses and officials. If you read three different papers [[which there were back then), you got details in three different ways because the reporters wrote their own stories. They didn't copy and paste off a link they clicked.

Today, I can hit five or more different 'news' websites and read exactly the same story, word for word, mistake for mistake.


I will NEVER pay for content on any website. I will never subscribe to any site that throws up a paywall.

That is really sad to hear. I hope you change your mind one day. We need people to continue to subscribe so we can get paid.

The fact you don't think you should pay for a service is incredibly sad.

[Honky Tonk]

That is really sad to hear. I hope you change your mind one day. We need people to continue to subscribe so we can get paid.

The fact you don't think you should pay for a service is incredibly sad.

I hate paying too but it's going to become a fact of life. Other than that, you're going to be led around by the nose with fake news. Hang in there Zads07. Keep doing the best you can with what you got. I hope things will get better.

[Richard]

You do understand that newspapers, most at least, have a subscription with the Associated Press, so newspapers will run AP stories a lot. Mine does.

Also, we can disagree on whether or not it's a good or a bad product, but what makes it bad, really?

Because although I will defend newspapers until my dying day, I want to know what it would take for readers to pay for content. What makes a newspaper a good product or a bad product?

I think post #8 summed it up pretty good.

But it does not appear as though the media does not choose to take into consideration what the readers are actually looking for.