Beoz

Not sure if this has extended to other publications but smh.com.au now only allows you to read 10 articles a month before hitting you up with a fee to read more. Fair enough, they are running a business, but there are other publications out there who don't so people, including myself are just going to go elsewhere.

Anyone else finding this?

GarryP

It's been noted and fixed, via a variety of methods. Easiest is probably :

A simple filter rule in Adblock – ||fairfax.com.au^

There are also Chrome and Firefox additions to clear the cookies/persistent data is uses.

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/2083182
http://www.exterminate-it.com/malped...ove-smh-com-au
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/d...gniaelmf?hl=en

Beoz

Yeah I figured it was a cookies thing. Will jump on those links for the PC. Thanks

What about the android phone internet browser. I wonder if there's something for that.

GarryP

Incognito mode in chrome?

Should mean that it has to start counting from zero every new tab - but I don't read it myself so I don't know if it works.

Mike at Taree

I'm actually thinking of taking out a subscription for the Sydney Morning Herald for $15 a month when they bring it in fully. After all we pay for iTunes, some apps, and even a dollar or two for a paper newspaper now and again. Fifty cents a day isn't much and if enough people do it, at least they can continue to provide some level of journalism. Between that, ABC online news and News 24 on iView I'd be well covered.
Problem with news outlets is that many younger people now get all their news from satirical sites. I have a gen Y mate (who appallingly is a phD) who keeps sending me items he's seen on "the onion" site and is absolutely convinced that it's a serious news organisation, Gawd help us.

GarryP

I really don't see most news sites as something worth paying for. Most just rehash stories/text/etc from elsewhere at a superficial level - and generally with an emphasis on the political slant of the owner (eg they lie shamelessly). If the owner wants to pump out propaganda, they can pay for it, and in fact I think they should be paying me to accept it.

The three main places I go are Google News, BBC News and The Guardian. If a 'news' site wanted me to pay, they'd have to deliver:

• Zero bias. I want the facts, and realistic extrapolation and interpretation - not some right wing oligarchs bias (news.com.au I'm looking at you, particularly in recent weeks)
• Deep and intelligent analysis. I'm not interested superficial b*ll*cks - I want to know why it matters, what the consequences are, and if it doesn't matter I DON'T WANT TO SEE IT.
• Smart personalisation. I want to know stuff that matters to me, and to be able to use it and build on it as I see fit. That means no DRM.

Until then, no money.

Hebe

The trouble is these days is that everyone wants everything for free particularly when it comes to music, films and news.

With regards to news are you saying that nothing is original and that all reports are re-hashed? I know for sure that this not the case and most media groups will do there own investigations - of course some news is bought from international news groups and to think otherwise would be naive. If we don;t pay for these things they just wont be produced in future - you can't afford to run on fresh air.

Pollyana

Thats fab, thanks for the links
Its causing us a huge headache at work as a large part of our job is to monitor news sites, but the government won't pay for the subscriptions so unless we subscribe personally we are constantly having to jump around between different browsers and computers to get a whole picture of one news item. I knew there had to be a way round the problem.

GarryP

How can the job require monitoring of news sources, but they not pay for subs?

GarryP

The current top story on SMH is about a preliminary report on a forced landing of a Virgin plane at Mildura.

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-...718-2q6e7.html

and here is the story from a blog, posted 3 hours earlier
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...ra-fog-crisis/

You'll excuse me if I'm not overflowing in my belief in hard journalistic work, by the 'reporter' that is. You'll also notice the much greater detail in the earlier blog report.

Pollyana

Queensland Government........need I say more!

Hebe

Crikey is run by a number of disgruntled former Fairfax journalists

GarryP

Sounds like they got rid of the wrong people....

Problem is, the existing newspaper model is dead, and online solutions look much more like blogs than they do DRMed fairfax sites. The existing newspaper entities are top heavy, slow, and not that much use when it comes to quality.

It's a regular occurrence, stories are run, without attribution, copied from blogs and fora. In contrast to the stories that newspaper journalists like to run - it's they that are the parasites in the relationship.

Is it any wonder that those that know won't pay?

Hebe

Are you a journalist or work for/have worked for print media?

GarryP

Nah, but I've had dealings with journalists, seen them in action, and seen how reactive they are.

I see them not so much as reporters of truth/facts, but spinners of tall tales. If those stories happen to be original, truthful or provide any insight is entirely incidental to the main thread of spinning a story.