well said, thank you for writing this. the viral screenshot culture thing is a scourge.
I'm actually not against people finding ways to hop our paywall if they really must, but I do draw the line at replying or quote tweeting *my own social post* with an archive link our paywalled stories. that's always so wild to me.
also small note, 404's FOIA-based reporting has been paywall-free since we launched in 2023 :) it's cool to see big outlets being creative and thoughtful about when (and when not) to wall.
I’m a local journalist writing a daily civic newsletter covering city hall meetings and events. We’ve never had a paywall. Yet, the local equivalent of news “aggregators” are real estate agents who steal reporting (and sometimes my photos!) and get thousands of views.
There is 0 barrier to entry for people for our work, you don’t even need to provide an email to read. But people literally just don’t want to read lol
I’m most bothered by the audacity of it, not the views. Because I know those views and engagement are almost entirely low quality and won’t result in paid subscribers.
I get really fed up in the paywall discussion, so I found your writing extremely refreshing.
This part especially: “ the loudest critics don’t see reporting as labor at all. They see journalists and writers as obstacles, standing in the way of what they already believe. It’s why people were upset that I said writing my article was hard and it’s why they chastised me for assuming people would read past the paywall or even click on the article. Because they didn’t see my article as work.” Much to think about!
Kind of tangential, but tying journalist compensation to paywalls overlooks how many outlets shut down not because they weren't making money, but because their owners got mad about something or private equity stripped them for parts. People will pay for reporting, and that model is resilient to gift links and paywall ducking.
Been thinking about this for years. Some sort of micropayments system would work well. Let’s say I have a budget of £20 per month to spend on articles irrelevant of source and it costs me 10pence per article. And when my £20 is up it’s gone.
It’s hard to maintain public standing these days as both a lover of knowledge/ avid reader of news and a notorious cheapskate, allergic to paying for anything, but a girl can give it her best shot. That said, thank you for the link to the profile at the end! A really thoughtful and intentional piece; I could tell from the three sentences I could afford to read
What's needed is a central place where you can choose which outlets to subscribe to and pay for all of them at once at a reduced rate since this would drive up traffic.
well said, thank you for writing this. the viral screenshot culture thing is a scourge.
I'm actually not against people finding ways to hop our paywall if they really must, but I do draw the line at replying or quote tweeting *my own social post* with an archive link our paywalled stories. that's always so wild to me.
also small note, 404's FOIA-based reporting has been paywall-free since we launched in 2023 :) it's cool to see big outlets being creative and thoughtful about when (and when not) to wall.
I’m a local journalist writing a daily civic newsletter covering city hall meetings and events. We’ve never had a paywall. Yet, the local equivalent of news “aggregators” are real estate agents who steal reporting (and sometimes my photos!) and get thousands of views.
There is 0 barrier to entry for people for our work, you don’t even need to provide an email to read. But people literally just don’t want to read lol
I’m most bothered by the audacity of it, not the views. Because I know those views and engagement are almost entirely low quality and won’t result in paid subscribers.
I get really fed up in the paywall discussion, so I found your writing extremely refreshing.
This part especially: “ the loudest critics don’t see reporting as labor at all. They see journalists and writers as obstacles, standing in the way of what they already believe. It’s why people were upset that I said writing my article was hard and it’s why they chastised me for assuming people would read past the paywall or even click on the article. Because they didn’t see my article as work.” Much to think about!
Kind of tangential, but tying journalist compensation to paywalls overlooks how many outlets shut down not because they weren't making money, but because their owners got mad about something or private equity stripped them for parts. People will pay for reporting, and that model is resilient to gift links and paywall ducking.
Been thinking about this for years. Some sort of micropayments system would work well. Let’s say I have a budget of £20 per month to spend on articles irrelevant of source and it costs me 10pence per article. And when my £20 is up it’s gone.
It’s hard to maintain public standing these days as both a lover of knowledge/ avid reader of news and a notorious cheapskate, allergic to paying for anything, but a girl can give it her best shot. That said, thank you for the link to the profile at the end! A really thoughtful and intentional piece; I could tell from the three sentences I could afford to read
incredible incredible incredible (both the ms rachel profile and this!)
What's needed is a central place where you can choose which outlets to subscribe to and pay for all of them at once at a reduced rate since this would drive up traffic.
good thing you locked down the replies, I was about to start fighting people in the comments 😅