Not sure who owns the Irishish Times, but their reasoning behind the "subscription" fee is laughable. Although I'm an avid reader on a daily basis, I'd prefer they just came out with the plain truth, i.e.even though there's a crisis you want to increase your income
The Irish Times is introducing subscription packages for its digital content from Monday, February 23rd. It will become the first national daily newspaper in Ireland to introduce a metered subscription for its digital content.
Kevin O'Sullivan, the editor of The Irish Times, said the move will "support future investment in journalism" across both print and digital.
The subscriptions are being introduced because the company does not believe it can sustain its online journalism through advertising income alone.
For the full article, please refer to www.irishtimes.com before you have to pay
It's a bit of corporate-speak all right, but what's so laughable about it? The IT is good quality journalism and the newspaper industry is getting it tight across the board.
If the sub includes access to the archive I might go for it. If they want a big take up they will need more exclusive and innovative content and less agency stuff.
Quote from: seafoid on February 17, 2015, 06:15:12 PM
If the sub includes access to the archive I might go for it. If they want a big take up they will need more exclusive and innovative content and less agency stuff.
Some hacks on twitter thought it would work out cheaper for those who access the archives.
When they had their 150 year anniversary a while ago they had the archives free for a week. Great job altogether.
Quote from: muppet on February 17, 2015, 08:30:39 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 17, 2015, 06:15:12 PM
If the sub includes access to the archive I might go for it. If they want a big take up they will need more exclusive and innovative content and less agency stuff.
Some hacks on twitter though it would work out cheaper for those who access the archives.
When they had their 150 year anniversary a while ago they had the archives free for a week. Great job altogether.
loads of great gaa interviews in the back catalogue
Mostly it bores the tits off a cow. There's good journalism and there's being bland in-effectual. iT is the later.
Sign of the end of the paper I'm afraid, it's dinner was eaten long ago now. Desperate times, desperate measures.
Well. Everybody has an opinion. Frankly I think there's always been a market for quality journalism. Not as big as the market for celebrity gossip but it is out there. The Economist is a great example of how quality writing can be good enough to keep people paying for it even in this day and age. The Irish Times has an excellent reputation and I certainly wouldn't object to paying for it.
Quote from: Syferus on February 17, 2015, 09:11:53 PM
Mostly it bores the tits off a cow. There's good journalism and there's being bland in-effectual. iT is the later.
Sign of the end of the paper I'm afraid, it's dinner was eaten long ago now. Desperate times, desperate measures.
later than what ?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2015, 06:07:40 AM
Well. Everybody has an opinion. Frankly I think there's always been a market for quality journalism. Not as big as the market for celebrity gossip but it is out there. The Economist is a great example of how quality writing can be good enough to keep people paying for it even in this day and age. The Irish Times has an excellent reputation and I certainly wouldn't object to paying for it.
I think the Times is probably the most readable paper, along with d'Paper. This would have been funny if it was the Indo, because that is definitely one paper that needs to invest in journalism.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2015, 06:07:40 AM
Well. Everybody has an opinion. Frankly I think there's always been a market for quality journalism. Not as big as the market for celebrity gossip but it is out there. The Economist is a great example of how quality writing can be good enough to keep people paying for it even in this day and age. The Irish Times has an excellent reputation and I certainly wouldn't object to paying for it.
The Economist is global, like the Financial Times, so a different market than that of the Irish Times.
The problem it has is that the indo has similar content for free. Overcoming that is the challenge.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2015, 06:07:40 AM
Well. Everybody has an opinion. Frankly I think there's always been a market for quality journalism. Not as big as the market for celebrity gossip but it is out there. The Economist is a great example of how quality writing can be good enough to keep people paying for it even in this day and age. The Irish Times has an excellent reputation and I certainly wouldn't object to paying for it.
It's also hip to be seen with The Economist too..... I'd say a large proportion people who pay for it actually page through rather than read it.
Quote from: thebigfella on February 18, 2015, 12:22:10 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 18, 2015, 06:07:40 AM
Well. Everybody has an opinion. Frankly I think there's always been a market for quality journalism. Not as big as the market for celebrity gossip but it is out there. The Economist is a great example of how quality writing can be good enough to keep people paying for it even in this day and age. The Irish Times has an excellent reputation and I certainly wouldn't object to paying for it.
It's also hip to be seen with The Economist too..... I'd say a large proportion people who pay for it actually page through rather than read it.
whats worse are the idiots that constantly quote the Economist and FT as if it were the word of god.
A great takedown of the Economist from James Fallows (http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/1991/10/-quot-the-economics-of-the-colonial-cringe-quot-about-the-economist-magazine-washington-post-1991/7415/). Nearly a quarter century old, yet still valid.
Quote from: Syferus on February 17, 2015, 09:11:53 PM
Mostly it bores the tits off a cow. There's good journalism and there's being bland in-effectual. iT is the later.
Sign of the end of the paper I'm afraid, it's dinner was eaten long ago now. Desperate times, desperate measures.
I understand those points syf and it is frustrating but if the IT doesn't do the quality stuff it won't be done. The 26 counties doesn't have the population to support an out and out top notch paper or tv station. Even in the UK it is hard. The late late and the sunday game suffer from the same problem. They have to serve everyone. But saying it is all shite is too negative, I think.
Quote from: deiseach on February 18, 2015, 01:05:02 PM
A great takedown of the Economist from James Fallows (http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/1991/10/-quot-the-economics-of-the-colonial-cringe-quot-about-the-economist-magazine-washington-post-1991/7415/). Nearly a quarter century old, yet still valid.
QuoteThe editorial line pushed by The Economist is also functionally similar to the Journal's. Markets nearly always work, and government meddling nearly always fails.
Um, no, The Economist is nowhere near as market fundamentalist as the WSJ. TE supports regulation where it'll do some good.
QuoteThe real question about this editorial approach is why it's paid off better for The Economist than for the Journal.
Prolly because the WSJ is a far right market fundamentalist paper while TE is much more centrist and is non partisan. I don't know who the WSJ backed but TE endorsed Barry Obama in the last two US presidential elections.
The rest of that article seems to be an Anglophobic rant that just doesn't like what the writer sees as the stuck-up tone of TE's writing.
Personally I find myself disagreeing with a lot of what The Economist writes, but I still read it anyway because it's not that hard to read between the lines, and you can still get a good picture of what's going on. I also appreciate how the only letters they print are corrections and disagreements with the previous week's articles, plus one or two short humorous quips.
BTW, did you know that Indonesia is at a crossroads?
That article is nicely written. But is only attacks the 'leaders' of The Economists. It compliments the rest of the articles and then ignores them.
My point was that it's not about investing in journalism, it's about maintaining an income acceptable income margin. This, I thought was laughable, although it is my preferred paper of choice although there are a few who get my hackles up Mi Lord.
The Irish Times, said the move will "support future investment in journalism"
I just bought a sub. I'll see if I can find that interview with the Lohans from the early 00s now.
Quote from: seafoid on February 23, 2015, 09:26:13 PM
I just bought a sub. I'll see if I can find that interview with the Lohans from the early 00s now.
what is your point ?