• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • a business man
    March 08, 2013 - 21:09

    The way I see it, the change to online news has killed unskilled jobs relating to the production of newsprint and paper, and created jobs related to IT. In my opinion, that is a good thing. Good riddance to the unskilled newsprint and paper production jobs, and welcome to the knowledge based IT jobs.

  • Thank god
    March 06, 2013 - 19:12

    It should be free given how difficult and slow it has been to connect to this website over the last few days .

  • Petertwo
    March 05, 2013 - 05:16

    I always thought newspapers, and others, raised their revenues from advertising. With the advent of computers- (the paper press was dying due to shortage of supply having exhausted a lot of forests)- surely the more people that access by computers will only increase the readership and the more readers the more one can charge for advertising. Considering the savings by not publishing on paper they must be considerable. As for paying customers, they are already paying quite highly in the products that advertisers advertise, part of the cost of the product, often 50 percent, or more, of the selling price. People are gouged enough by nearly everyone, I doubt they will eventually have much left to subscribe to the press by the time they buy the necessities, at the rate their costs are escalating, leading to less readership and less advertising dollars, better to keep the readership up, surely?

  • Colin Burke
    March 04, 2013 - 21:00

    Like Saelcove and Mr. Neary, I feel a bit guilty. But, since I do subscribe to The Western Star and The Georgian, I feel it would be somewhat unthrifty to get The Telegram for news and I hardly ever look there for that but only for opinion pieces and a chance to argue about them. However, if a lesser rate than full price for the whole paper were charged for access to opinons which did not later turn up as guest editorials in WS, I'd probably be glad to pay that, depending on how much lesser. As Samuel Johnson said long before you, "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, but for money." I'm still trying to write for money, having been retired now for just about as long as I was a well-paid newspaper reporter from 1969 to 1988 with one year off.

  • grisha
    March 04, 2013 - 15:52

    What you describe as the evolution of news media is called capitalism. The change is because someone found a new way to do something, tried it out on the market and it worked. I am not sure that it is a better product but some folks seem to prefer it. I have noticed that the New York Times and the Washington Post, as well as other news agencies, have become extremely political and biased. The old becomes complacent and nonresponsive and is replaced by the new. Time for the dinasours to move over.

  • Disagree
    March 02, 2013 - 14:37

    No tears here. First, someone is paying, maybe not enough, but I see all around this editorial all kinds of advertising. Is the Tely doing that for free? Also, what about all the people who provide the information for the news, does the Tely pay them, of course not. A lot of the time we read about the Tely complaining about the cost of getting information from government. A legitimate complaint, however, the Tely would like it for free and then turn around and make money of it from readers. In time, these "free" stories will be gone abd replaced with some sort of fee system. But the media created this situation and I don't think too many feel sorry for them.

  • saelcove
    March 02, 2013 - 11:01

    guilty, how much is your cell phone bill every month or cable bill every month, Guess Quebec owners want us to pay to read, coming soon

  • Pierre Neary
    March 02, 2013 - 09:28

    Interesting and valid points. Definetly a complex problem. As I sit here typing on an i pad I do feel a little guilty.