³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

No. I'll buy someone else's hard copy.

I doubt it'll work since there are too many alternatives. If it's closed off to non-paying then it'll be closed off to the search engines. Journalists think they are better than everyone else but the truth is free content will beat them. They are terrified of blogs.

If the Times (or any other outlet) believes that its content is worth the payments then they are fully entitled to test the market. The market response will then determine the answer.

I would just like to take this opportunity of thanking News International for giving us 3 months warning of their intentions. I for one will certainly be not paying to read these titles online!!

Their newspapers are already priced too highly yet they are still not satisfied. Why should it always be about money and greed?

No, I certainly will not be paying for news online. I pay a licence fee to the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and I get my news from that organisation, whether that be from radio, tv or internet. I stick to the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ because it is impartial, at least it claims to be. I don't buy any newspapers because if I do, I am buying their propaganda and headlines, not impartial news. So I don't care if they charge for online content or not - I don't care for their opinion anyway.

As soon as the Times agree to the exciting proposition of paying me for my comments, I will start paying them for an online subscription.

Either the "exciting proposition" of paying works for all online content - their copyright newspaper material and my copyright commentary material - or we will have a tremendously unfair situation where businesses are allowed to exploit copyright but individuals are not.

The management at the Times must be a little off their trolleys. £1 per day just to check out a wbsite! One can buy a whole paper for that.

The paper gives a couple of hours reading after diner plus the crosswords. Far better value for money. It helps fill out the cat's try at the end of normal use.

Never. It is simply greed.
There are "numerous" other sites where I can/do receive my daily dose of news updates. I really can not see the Times making any money out of this (online payment) whatsoever.

No i would not pay for the news from a newspaper websight, i already subscribe for the news from my ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ licence fee.

Doh! Why would I want to pay for something that I can get for free elsewhere?

My Mum taught me "Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves!" I no longer even buy a daily or Sunday newspaper and have not done for around 15 years as I can get any news I need from TV, Radio or Internet. I do relent occasionally, and buy one only to have my fears confirmed that most of the news contained in them is bad news, blown out of all proportion, so why on earth would I want to pay in order to read that?

No. Given the cost of broadband I'm thinking of invoicing the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and other websites for using my connection.

It might just work for the Times if they have exclusive proper news on the website, but as for the red-tops it won't work.

As for me paying for online news, thanks but no thanks. ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ & Reuters is good enough for me.

Typical Murdoch. Greed and monopoly define underly he does. This will stop me buying the Times.

Would you pay for online news?

Already do.

For about 30p a day i get full access to all ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ services.

Mr Murdoch feels this is anti-competetive, which is another way of saying that its a brilliant deal for consumers, whilst not so good for news corp.

Still once his new best mates the Tories get into number 10 i'm sure they'll honour the bargain they made with Mr Murdoch and ensure that the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ scales back its services enabling private companies, like Mr Murdoch's, to make even bigger profits.

To the detriment of every single UK citizen. But with the Tories Big Business always comes first.

Er no chance, I wont be going anywhere near their website once they charge. I'd rather buy a newspaper than pay to view news on the website. The beauty of the internet is the freedom of information not some old news baron trying to preach that we should all have to pay for news.

Of course not. If I want to read a paper I'll buy it.

I think this is a positive step actually because there is a real sense that everything online is free, including content, downloads etc and this really I guess is the start of what will happen right across the internet. It is not just about news, we have had it free and easy for a long time now and the internet is ingrained in our lives but somewhere down the line the person that writes the story, creates the content has to be paid and this for me is just the start of what was always going to happen.

I won't pay out of my pocket so long as good news sources are available for free. Having said that, define 'free'? We pay a tax to fund the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ, and we pay through the price of goods for advertising for sites which derive their revenue from that. So nothing is 'free' but I have a hunch the advertising-funded sites are cheaper than the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ.

As for The Times - what a catastrophically stupid move.

Currently I do read it online. Once it starts charging I will not. I recently had a cut price offer for the paper itself and read it for a week. I had five weeks to go, but frankly it was not worth the half price I was paying. Sorry, not interested.

Why would I want to pay for Murdoch's opinionated websites when I have the best news website in the world right here, with the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ.

I will certainly not pay, and I urge others not to either. If their experiment is deemed a success, all the other news sites will follow suit. They get sufficient revenue from advertising anyway, and are just getting greedy.

If people had shown more restraint when pay-per-view was first trialled, it would never have got off the ground, and we'd all be better off for that.

Reccomend posting No. 3. Why PAY for lies?

I currently read the The Times Online electronic news. I also download and read other newsfeeds.

I do this to get different perspectives upon the news and get a varied diet of perspective and comment upon that news.

However, the moment the electronic news becomes fee-for-access I will stop using The Times Online website.

I will just delete the newsfeed ... it is as easy as that!

As fast as the current news papers charge, the free ones will pop-up. While the daily is acceptable, there is something about the layout / mass of adverts of Timesonline I don't like and don't use anyway! If it becomes pure news and not one big advert, I might lash out £1 to see what it is like.

No i dont think so ....

Murdoch doesn't have a hope.

He's got enough money, it's not like he needs any more of the stuff.

I don't read any of Murdoch's rags either hard copy or web based.
I certainly won't pay to read online news. I don't think many other people will either. Remember when Bill Gates floated the idea of charging for web access via IE? Another idea that went down like a lead balloon.

I wish the UK had similar laws to the US which ban foreigners owning media companies.

Just look at the hugely negative effect Fox news has had in the US.

They've been heavily involved in spreading disinformation about the healthcare reforms, to the point where certain democrats have now had their offices vandalised & have recieved death threats directed at their children

Is that the kind of responsible journalism you'd want to pay for online.

No.

At least, not more than I already do seeing as the TV tax funds this 'ere website :)

I might pay for op-ed pieces if written by someone whose work I enjoy, but not for actual news.

Why would I pay for news that is completely biased. At least the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ pretend to be impartial and I already pay my licence fee.

I pay my licence fee, which funds the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ, which produces this website... So yes. Laughing at all the posters who said no.

I've also paid £2.39 to download the guardian iPhone app. Worth every penny

The ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and Sky already receive my news and comment subscriptions through multiple choice access fees. They both supply in-depth coverage of local, national and internationally breaking, and ongoing news stories from their own resources and many other news agency sources. My personal broadband internet account not only reinforces the news output received through my TV screen, it also allows me to learn the views of the public on major and minor news and life-in-general subjects through the myriad of free blogs, polling sites and websites as diverse as it is possible to encompass.

If The Times - or any other national newspaper - wishes to charge for access to their content, that is their prerogative. However, just as it is highly unlikely that I would go out in the rain to buy one of their bloated-with-advertising fish and chip wrappers, it is even more unlikely that I would pay for web access to an organisation so full of its own self-importance that it would expect me to pay in the first place.

Do they really believe their opinions matter.
The responsibility of the media is to report news - their egotistical opinions are a thing of the past.
Journalists don't write articles anymore, they do a "piece" as though it is some linguistic artform.
Good riddance - I can make up my own mind so long as I can access freee impartial news

Put simply, no!

For my news, I generally access the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ.
If at home, like now, I'll use the main ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ News website.
If out, I'll access the bandwidth saving ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Mobile site on my smartphone.

If I feel I'd like a second opinion, or a different perspective, then there are plenty of free sources out there.

While I quite like The Times, I'll certainly not even consider £1 per day, or even £2 per week. I'd rather have the hard copy, which as #7 mentioned, can also be recycled for more useful purposes afterwards.

I'm not sure how dedicated their readers are.
I'm sure quite a few of the devoted will happily pay.
But how many? I can't see the UK population as a whole jumping on-board.

Vin.

News International has just shot itself in the foot. I rarely use it now when it's free, so I'm hardly likely to pay to read a mouthpiece for the Labour Party.

No. I never bought the times when it wasn't online and I've never been to the website now it is. Similarly for other newspapers.

I do already pay for the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ though.

This is Murdoch looking to the future. Apple's iPad is due shortly to be followed by HP and others. There are people who will gladly part with their £2 per week for a preferred newspaper but with moving graphics etc., The £1 per day will catch the occasional 'viewer' but the £2 per week is a killer (eventually).

Free sources of news/magazines will disappear. It's the future. Murdoch's News Corp may lose money to begin with but in the long term ... the Sunday Times paper version alone costs £2, the weekdays 80p. If you are a regular Times reader then the online version is cheap (for now).

The only news that I read online is the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ News, which isn't a newspaper. In a way, I do pay for it though as it's funded by the licence fee.

No I won't, there is plenty of other places where you can go to access the news for free.

The Times is missing the point, when you surf the net looking for news you are not looking for an editorial stance, you are usually looking for breaking news from a variety of different sources.

If I want to read the Times I'll go to the library where I can read it for free.

Surprise surprise, newspaper sales are declining!
Is it any wonder given the garbage that's printed in them?
I ceased reading newspapers several years ago and it isn't because of internet technology such as easier online access, it was the fact that the content became just too asinine.
I mean you only have to look at some of the red top headlines to determine the level of gutter snipe rubbish these so called editors perceive as news.
As regards charging for content, well the death knell sounded long ago for newspapers in general, though sadly the tabloids will probably still flourish and all charging will do is expedite the end of newspapers as we know them and good riddance.
The day journalists started making news instead of reporting it was the last straw for me.

Simple answer - no.

There are too many free alternatives.

And the fact that it's Mr Murdoch's coffers makes it even less likely.

Are you kidding? I wouldnt take many of these papers if they were free and delivered to my door!!

If i want news there is the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and Reuters to name but 2 free sources (well maybe not the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ since they rip my licence fee from me)!

I do already. It's, called the TV licence!

No! I get my news from the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ its much better than the over inflated garbage produced by the mainly foreign owned fantasy comics that masquerade as newspapers these days.

we already do,its called the licence fee, we have no choice, perhaps if the bbc are so good they should drop the fee and live of subscription fee's i'm sure everybody would be happy to pay for the quality services they offer ,,,,,,,,,not

We already pay a large annual tax for ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and its news, which includes the website and its propaganda war against Israel.

This has nothing to do with raising revenue for News International. They know it will result in a dramatic fall in readership and, as a result, they will lose advertising revenue too. This is about global news politics - and particularly the position of the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ. To date, other news organisations have not been able to demonstrate the effect that the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ has on their revenues - because they've given their content away for free. Once News International starts charging, they will be able to quantify the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ's effect on the market. Murdoch can't stand the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ, as he sees it as the main barrier to news and other media domination in the UK. This is the first tactical skirmish in what will become a bitter war.

If the Times was impartial and balanced, and regularly offered some of the excellent coverage that yesterday's Times budget analysis by Anatole Kaletsky provided, I might consider it. But I certainly won't be paying to read the likes of Tony Cascarino, who is terrible, or the business and political commentators because they make so little attempt to disguise their editorial agendas it is laughable.

The Times has shifted its front page news and its political commentary sharply to the right. It still has good writers and it still has decent analysis from all sides of the spectrum, but the spectre of Murdoch's ownership looms large over the pages. I won't pay money to have someone actively campaign to shut down the brilliant, world renowned public service broadcasting we have in this country.

So no. I won't pay for online news. I pay my license fee because I want to enjoy the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ coverage, not because of the TV licensing laws. Murdoch seems to think that SKY news and the Times are a rival in content quality and consistency. They are nowhere near. The "news" in these services is highjacked by emotional stories and diverted into celebrity nonsense. Why does he think people will pay for that? If anything he should be paying us all compensation for the standard of their news reporting.

Never !! There are many sources of news for free, I do not like buying newspapers of any kind as they are full of adverts and purile stories about the lives of so called prsonalities. Sources like the "³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ news" provide good coverage of the latest news, even although they tend to lean heavily to the left with their views. Sky and ITV news are also an excellent way to keep abreast of what is happening here and abroad. To pay for online news is wrong and I hope they fail in their attempt.

I wouldn't pay for on-line news, especially from a right wing propagandist such as Rupert Murdoch.

Reading the news on the computer just doen't feel right.
I prefer paper.
When i do read the news on the computer its only ones that catch my intrest.. so no i wouldn't buy it. i dont see why i should to read one story.

Is this a form of censorship??

if the whole web done this tomorrow the web would be finished.

If its about money loss then don't put the stories up. if its about your going bust then dont blame the computer.

Jounalists have to be paid. The sooner people realise that, the better. Those who think journalists are terrified of blogs are sadly mistaken - you only have to look at the drivel bloggers write. Send a few bloggers to write up a court story. The chaos they would cause would be entirely predictable.

I already do pay via the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ tax, now what about all those from abroad that use this service?

Why on earth would ANYONE want to pay to read Murdoch's nonsense? If we were talking about a quality publication, perhaps, but you can't run quality with the kind of morals that Murdoch uses.

Good Bye.
It was good while it lasted.

The alternatives are many,varied and free.Mr.Murdoch has priced his journalism out of the market.There is little profit in a small select market

No. I already pay for ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ news - so why would I pay for any other news ?

With the imminent arrival of the iPAD, it will be interesting to see how long this pay-for-access model works. Any click-though advertsigin links from other sites that link to the Times sites will cause issues- so News International may find their reader numbers decline.

No - never - what a ridiculous idea!

No. I would prefer to buy a hard copy newspaper, and would continue to buy one of their competitors newspapers.
I have occasionally looked at articles on their webpages when they have caught my eye, but would not be prepared to pay for it, particularly when the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ websites are free, and I also use AOL to access the internet which also has various news pages.

Why would you pay for second rate biased rupert murdoch trash when the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ is free and is the largest most impartial news resource on the internet?

You'd have to be crazy to pay to read the times online. Murdoch has shot himself in the foot, his online prescense will disappear very soon.

Another fine example of a traditional business trying to survive in the new world with an old business model. Almost without exception, the leaders in the internet economy are new businesses, not old ones that have successfully adapted. You'd think one of them would have the wit to work it out.

No. I will not be paying News International to access the Times online. There are many 'quality' alternative sources of news available for free. It is greed that drives News International to propose a subscription model. Anyone who might be considering buying a hardcopy of the Times may actually choose an alternative paper in protest. We live in a society where news is freely available from many sources: ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ, Reuters,...etc. What make News International think that their subscription of online content will work? Good luck, but I, for one, will not be subscribing nor buying anything from News International.

I stopped buying Newspapers years ago, they had too much trivia, very little news content, never intend to re-start buying them. Normally rely on overseas news corps to provide a truer balanced reporting.

Not the brightest move the Times has ever made, far from attracting business they'll most likely lose it now. I certainly wouldn't pay for information I can get elsewhere for free.

How long before the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ start charging to use HYS I wonder?

I must say there is absolutely no way I would pay for a news website, especially as there are hundreds of them which are all free. If the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ were to start charging there would be an uproar.
The only way this would ever take off is when all news websites charge. If that were to happen I think web users would turn to sites that blog about the news, or Facebook and Twitter. News stories break faster on twitter than any news site.
I totally understand why the newspaper sites want to charge, because they are losing revenue from newspaper sales. The news sites should be looking at other revenue streams, advertising, API’s etc.

I have no problems with paying for stuff on the internet. I pay for many things just now, my Star Trek Online subscription just being the latest of many. I do this gladly cause it is the only way that I can be Captain Kirk.

But, there is nothing on the current News International websites that I would pay for. I don't trust their news coverage, their comment borders on hysterical and their articles on travel, lifestyle etc. are really not needed in this age of specialised websites covering such things.

So, unless Rupert has thought of something that is the equivalent of me being Captain Kirk I think my money will stay in my pocket.

I wouldn't pay for it but I would be happy if they were to sell
advertising space on the site which would help finance it

Another step in the terminal decline of newspapers.

Let them die.

I don't blame anyone for trying to get as many freebies as possible. I'm no different. Trouble is, there is a cost attached to every product unless of course, the journalists are all volunteers, there are no expenses attached to gathering the news and the ISP do not charge The Times for their services.

Newspapers do give a far more in depth report than any news channel ever could. Look at the recent budget for example.

I suspect the decision to charge for an online service is due to the smaller circulation of hard copy and thus less money available to support the online service.

The money available through advertising can only support so many 'freebies'. Just look at what happend with the demise of free newspapers in London. If you want a choice, someone has to pay for it.

I'll carry on getting most of my news from ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ News 24 as usual, or on the odd occasion go down to the local pub and read their Hard Copy Simplz

Another rip off from Murdoch to squeeze money out of people.

No, or at least not until all sites are pay-for-view. If this ever happens I still have the television, radio & teletext.

I am one of many who try to see news stories from different points of view and with pay-to-view my subscriptions would be pretty high as I visit websites of several news outlets in several countries.

Pay-to-view would reduce my options to get a balanced view of what is happening. I doubt it would bother some of the HYS commentators who seem to only read the Guardian and parrot the views portrayed there. They should try to broaden their horizons, something paying-to-view news will make harder for the most open minded among us.

I stopped buying the Times or the Sunday Times when it was taken over by Murdoch and so I certainly will not pay to visit their websites. I strongly disapprove of the way that the Murdoch family blatantly run their media empire so as to further their political and commercial interests.

Well publishing the news is a business and businesses are entitled to try to make revenue and turn a profit. I don't think they've thought this one through though...
I will just go to the several hundred (if not thousand) other news-sites to obtain the information I seek, then i'll review blogs for alternative comment.
This is getting to the nub of the issue. Information should always be free and this is where some people disagree. Knowing 'stuff' although a thing of value is not something that should be charged for in my humble opinion.

If the news was good enough, i would consider paying for it.

But if it was more of the same knee-jerk misquote sensationalism with the motto 'never let the truth get in the way of a good story', then i wouldn't bother.

There is a public need for well researched, reasonably objective, news content from respected sources. It costs money to produce that kind of material and in the end the internet is no different to any other transmission medium, so yes we will pay.

But I think things will be different and maybe better.
News organisations might have to report real news!

I certainly won't pay to read the "lifestyle" nonsense and inane "comment" written by overpaid, upper-middle class journalists, who litter their copy with advertorials for their friends and colleagues.

Where the Times leads the other quality newspapers and news outlets will follow - the days of everything on the Internet being "free" are probably over.

I'm not surprised by this move and in a few years time we'll all pay for online news. I buy the Times (paper) everyday and look forward to reading it in the evening after dinner, even though I read the Times online during the day. I hope the Times honours this somehow, maybe with a code that you can use for the online version so you don't have to pay twice.

No, especially "news" provided by Murdoch's evil empire.

Murdoch has always wanted to charge for his online media. The reason, he himself, has given for not charging in the past, has been competition from the free worldwide service provided by the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ. So what has changed now? Murdoch, knows there is no such thing as a free lunch. His support for Tony Blair at elections, came with the price of Blair's unconditional backing for Murdoch's US neo-conservative pals over Iraq. Murdoch has now switched his support to the Conservatives. Has Cameron promised Murdoch something regarding the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ? The anti-³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ propaganda from News International and the Conservatives, has already started. Will ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ News become the UK branch of Fox News?

I read and subscribe the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and NO I will not pay for any online news.

So if you too are planning to make your service commercial then I'll switch to google. :P

No...I don't use Times/Sunday Times sites. I would look for an alternative free site if a site I did use decided to charge.

If you want to know what I think, you'll have to pay.

"Users will pay £1 for a day's access and £2 for a week's subscription."

No they won't.

I just read the news ; I just deleted the Times website from my bookmarks..... Hello Telegraph , Guardian , Indy .

The real issue is not news but archive. Before the web the Times published an index and you went to the library and consulted it and read it on scratchy microfilm. You could read as many as you needed but you needed to make notes. Now the Times will charge not only for news... but for 'journalism' so even if you want something from the March 25th 2009 you will have to pay. I assume you will pay £2.00 and the cancel the sub until you need 'em again!

The Times was once among the most prestigeous of newspapers and well worth the money. Then along came Rupert Murdoch........

Nope..

What a way to send a online newspaper to the wall? people will not pay for online news.End of story its been tried before and failed .

There is another post about unions and unions power. This is similar. Rupert Murdoch is as usual trying to get power over information and thereby control the publics news feed and ultimately have power over the way people vote and think. See how right wing Fox News is in the U.S.and how the U.S. is being manipulated, good example Obamas Healthcare Bill. Murdoch sees control slipping away from News Corp due to online news being free so his response is to charge for access to his publications gambling that if it pays then other newsgroups and quite possibly the B.B.C. charging as well, seeing as a way to make profits. Murdoch will attempt to take over all other net based media and have more power over us than any union commissar could dream of. It is not unions that people should be wary of it is news barons and big business manipulating us on a daily basis. If you don't believe me just check your weekly shopping and see things you have bought that you don't really need.

I paid £2.39 for the Guardian app. That's a brilliant app that delivers content quickly, and in a great format.
I won't pay £104 a year for a website for news. That's absolutely ridiculous.
Still if Murdoch doesn't see all of the other non specialist sites that have failed to monetize the news in the way he wishes to, then thats fine, on his head be it.

I stopped buying the Times as most of it was unread and ended up being recycled. All newspapers have far too many supplements which the majority of people do not read. If these were available separately to be bought if required, I might go back to buying a NEWS paper.

I wouldn't pay for any of Murdoch's propaganda.

Will the new Indie try to charge. It already charges foe some use of the material off its web site.

Like most UK households, I already pay for news via the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ license fee which will cost 40p per day from 1st April 2010. This is fantastic value for money; I get access to their incomparable & resourceful website, national & local radio, on demand TV, news flashes, documentaries, drama, weather, traffic reports, etc etc .... in up to 50 different languages. Even Gaelic & Welsh.

Despite this compelling proposition, Murdoch wants £1 per day or £2 per week from subscribers in return for on-line access to grubby titbits & soft porn published by old fashioned newspapers. Let the free market prevail & stifle this man's insatiable appetite for power & control.

I predict a short lived experiment that will be quietly withdrawn & there wont be a naked, banner waving lady in site.

nope I would just use the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ website instead

For the Times to make this move can only mean one thing, that its already set in stone that news sites, such as the bbc and other free news, are going to be scaled back so outdated super rich media barons can keep making money. All these capitalists do is bang on about free market enterprise and de-regulation until something hits their bottom line, then they use their size to force protectionist measures. Capitalise the profits... Socialise the losses.
³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ -dont you dare scale back a thing, or i'll ask for a refund.

No.
For the simple reason I do not like reading long articles on a PC screen.

I think the times has got this all wrong.

I had the editor talking on the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ this morning about it, making comparisons between music industry and news.

In a few years on the internet anybody will be reporting news and writing about news. Look at the Hudson plane landing - it was reported first on Twitter.

We can all be photographers and reporters on the internet, but we cant all sing and sell music - this is why it is different.

I think people want the facts, and anybody can report the facts - In 10 years time I doubt we will have news papers (made from paper) as we do now.

This is a good example of 100 comments on this page now about this story, it is probally much more interesting than reading about the same thing in a news paper

"Prince talks to pot plant, 'Phew what a looney'. My God, the times has really gone downhill lately Baldrick!"
- E Blackadder

This line was hilarious in 1987 because it was so implausible that such a respected newspaper would ever do such a thing. Then it was taken over by a conglomerate more interested in forcing its own agenda- one of making more money at all costs- rather than truth. Now it seems to be simply a matter of time before we get that headline, though perhaps after it has been run through a thesaurus first!


Let us make no mistake, most journalists and reporters have been failing to do their jobs correctly for years- and that includes many at the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ.
Instead of going out and investigating and following up leads, they are repackaging other peoples 'news' feeds- much of which is unverified or in fact comes from the office of a publicist!

Nowhere is this more obvious than on the internet, where free online sites constantly outdo the (currently) free online versions of the pay-for services such as news papers.

What were the 'professional' reporters doing when the Iraq dossiers were being 'sexed up'?
We got hit by headline after headline about such topics as how Iraq might have anthrax, whilst meanwhile places like papertrail and truthout were already publishing online the documents that proved positive that the anthrax Iraq used to have was sold to them by the US 15 years previously and had a shelf life of only 8!


Perhaps I too could simply get a news feed from Reuters and/or the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ then reword those reports and then charge people for them? Then again, why reword them? Some of the online newspapers thinking of charging in the future already don't bother!