http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/02/25/newspaper-paywalls-wont-forever-keep-the-barbarians-at-the-gate Comments On: Newspaper Paywalls Won't Forever Keep the Barbarians at the Gate by Goldy en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Sat, 25 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Sat, 25 May 2013 11:15:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by ian]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2013 00:19:25 -0800 The Stranger Posted by elpablogrande]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:58:21 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Sean Kinney]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:14:36 -0800 The Stranger
So yeah, you'll find an awful lot of posts from me that reference the Seattle Times.
Posted by Goldy]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 21:56:37 -0800 The Stranger
"Why should I Tweet a Seattle Times headline if the bulk of my followers can't load the page from the embedded link? Why link to the paper's website at all, except for entirely exclusive content? "

Okay. So here we are.

The Stranger (my heroes. Fucking love you gals & guys!!!) clearly benefits from its readers' unrestricted access to the Seattle Times website (?)... as a source, as a foil, as a ping for The Stranger's pong. No? Please.

Someone with the time and sobriety should index Slog references to ST-authored articles. I presume it will be statistically significant
Posted by Sean Kinney]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 21:31:03 -0800 The Stranger
The reason the old WSJ was successful with a pay model, was compelling, original, exclusive content. Something the current "FOX" WSJ and the Seattle Times do not have much of.
Posted by WestSeven]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:49:28 -0800 The Stranger
Newspapers have always seen the bulk of their costs paid by advertisers, not subscribers. Subscribers only pay for the production and distribution, not the content. When the newspaper goes online, the cost of the production and distribution plummets. It doesn't go to zero, but it's a whole lot cheaper to have 200,000 online subscribers than to have 200,000 print subscribers.

The problem is that the Times can't charge as much for their online ads as they charge for their print ads, and that is messed up.
Posted by Charlie Mas]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:08:23 -0800 The Stranger
And online commenters at the ST are even older. Like fossils, only not as alive.
Posted by Will in Seattle]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:01:09 -0800 The Stranger http://bit.ly/VJu5CJ
Posted by annettefunicello]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:55:41 -0800 The Stranger
One the one hand, I don't want to see our only remaining daily newspaper die. If I ignore their editorial page, most of the reporting is pretty decent, and they have far more reporters covering far more stuff than the Stranger or other blogs could ever hope to duplicate. I think there is value to rigorous, fact-checked, multi-sourced reporting.

On the other hand, their editorial board has become a de facto arm of the Republican party, and Frank Blethan is an asshole of the first order. I don't want to see a dime of my subscription money enriching that prick any further.

I miss the P-I every day. If the P-I is any example, their online-only version is a shadow of its former self. I have a hard time imagining the Seattle Times' fate being any different.
Posted by Reverse Polarity]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:40:42 -0800 The Stranger
But, if the Seattle Times is in such dire financial straits, how can they lure a new investigative reporter to the fold?

Who are they moving to soft news to make room for him or her?
Posted by Fizgig]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:36:21 -0800 The Stranger
I know how to advocate. This was analysis, not advocacy.
Posted by Goldy]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:53:42 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Suck it, Blethen]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:53:24 -0800 The Stranger
The Stranger occupies a very specific business model (and a very profitable one). They are THE conduit for consumers their advertisers hope to reach (young, urban, hipster, whatever). There isn't room for another Stranger. This is most obviously evidenced by the decline of The Weekly, whose audience is slightly older and more staid, but between them there is some degree of overlap. Businesses know which of the two is more efficacious.

The Seattle Times is not and never will be The Stranger. Circulation audits are, as far as I can gather, unavailable to the public without paying for them (cannot locate them on Google), but I would suspect that the majority of their subscribers live outside the liberal/left bubble we all cherish. The ST has no real need to serve the political and cultural interests of the average Stranger reader.

Still, they do hire real journalists and there is no doubt that the Seattle Times does provide something worth paying for for some folks, and often an entertaining foil for the Slog's writers.

So ask yourself this, knowing that in fact the Seattle Times pays people to work for them - are you entitled to their product for free? REALLY?


Posted by Sean Kinney]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:39:25 -0800 The Stranger
Surely this is a mistake? Maybe you're misinterpreted their price sheet, or they made an error in it?
Posted by ryanmm]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:36:07 -0800 The Stranger #22 -> #1

Acknowledging what WiS said.


Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:23:14 -0800 The Stranger
They are a megaphone for the entrenched powers and not all all equalized reporting in the classic sense. It's so clear this town has a crying need for what might even be called Yellow Journalism because the oppostion forces from local blogs to the stations and the presses present such a monolithic view of life here (it's snowing in the mountains!...we all want a tunnel!!) that writing comments is the only way to read something that wasn't hand crafted by the Downtown Syndicate.

Now, it's one thing to eat at the rich man's trough for free, it's another thing when he wants to charge me for eating his slop. Especially if the other rich men give me slop for free. Assuming any of that will last.

And whatever happened "crowdsourced news" and flash mobs with cell phones creating instant happenings? Yeah, right. Doesn't buy much at Target does it...

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:22:03 -0800 The Stranger
So it's really about monetizing the people who read the paper every day. More power to them.
Posted by Martin H. Duke]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:15:19 -0800 The Stranger
The current model is clearly unsustainable, yet you admit you don't have another idea to put forward. So you might as well shut the fuck up.

Posted by bigyaz]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:13:03 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Sara Kiesler]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:52:15 -0800 The Stranger
@SeanKinney There's a huge difference between analysis of a profit-seeking business and of Washington's worst-in-the-nation regressive tax system. There is no contradiction in Goldy's position, except maybe to Ayn Rand's maggoty, inbred children.
Posted by Che Guava]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:51:39 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Sara Kiesler]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:45:37 -0800 The Stranger Posted by rnoble]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:45:20 -0800 The Stranger
Look, the Times needs to understand that Seattle is green, liberal, and damn proud of it.

Fighting against your readership hollows you out and leaves you with lots of old grumpy people who never pay for anything anyway. No upmarket chances, fewer ad resale possibilities.
Posted by Will in Seattle]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:44:47 -0800 The Stranger http://www.geekwire.com/2013/broadband-r…

98.7 percent live in areas with broadband available.
83 percent live in households with internet access.
Posted by Sean Kinney]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:35:06 -0800 The Stranger