May 11th, 2009 
joel Last week, our P&T readers presented President Obama his 100-day media report card. Over half of the poll respondents gave him an A+, totally in control of the media coverage and his “brand,” with another third gave him at least a B.
This week, we are exploring new paradigms for the monetization and survival of the old media in this new era. I’m keying off of an article I tweeted about from Harvard University that gave a roadmap to the Boston Globe’s future. They referenced their crosstown rival MIT’s Technology Review, which makes the case for making the news free, while charging for the extras.
Where’s the money going to come from to keep our professional journalists creating content? Vote then weigh in on the comments.
Would you pay a subscription or per article price for premium content made available by local mainstream media?
- No: everything on the internet provided by local media should be free (60%, 18 Votes)
- Maybe: if the price was right and the content was interesting enough (40%, 12 Votes)
- Yes: it’s worth spending a few bucks to get the context of the news (0%, 0 Votes)
Total Voters: 30
Loading ...
Posted in 
Tags: 
Unfortunately this would not work for the ETN. They do provide very little, if any, worthwhile news. Just worthless drivel that supports the lame politicians of Erie County.
Or politicians they don’t happen to like…witness the hatchet job they did on school board candidate Denise Manus a week or so ago.
I assume that the question doesn’t mean only the Times as the provider. Quality being in the eye of the beholder, there would have to be perceived value by the customer in exchange for the cost. I have to agree with PR above. Traditional quality investigative reporting ala a Carol Pella type presentation, might be more in line.
This topic of paid content came up on NPR’s Marketplace this afternoon:
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/05/11/pm_paidcontent_q/