Irish Times Blinks First

cloudatlas · 28-02-2015 12:01pm

Well it depends what you read it for, I go on every Saturday and look at the book reviews. Now that section is scant enough that I don't feel compelled to pay. The main news stories are available on other online sources. I will miss Fintan O'Toole but I wouldn't press 16 euro's into his hand for the pleasure.

jmcc · 28-02-2015 12:25pm

IRE60 wrote: »

Only €1 for the first month - as JMCC - the first payment is probably the hardest! so maybe its a way to ease people in?

C

Typical of the IT. It is easy to reduce prices but not to increase them. If it is a good product then the customer will pay for it. The IT site is an established site and people already generally know what they will be getting for the monthly subscription. These people have always operated under the conceit that they are some kind of high-profile global newspaper with a high reputation, like the New York Times, the Washington Post or the Financial Times. They are just a provincial/village newspaper by comparison. The real killers for the IT are the size of the market and the availability of free competing news sources.

The last time the IT went PPV, it was a disaster because the people in charge hadn't a clue about what they were doing. They effectively handed over the online Irish news market to RTE, the Independent and the Examiner. If things are going badly, then there might be an appearance of one day subs and one week subs.

Regards...jmcc

elperello · 28-02-2015 12:55pm

I have considered the various options and come to the conclusion that as a regular reader living outside the delivery areas I am to be fleeced if I want to use the online content.

This is a poor reward for spending €12.50 a week on the paper.

Halloween Jack · 28-02-2015 1:03pm

I have no problem paying for content online, but there really is very little on offer here to make me part with money.

The website is pretty basic and since the relaunch the amount of spelling, grammatical type errors have been shocking. I'm also fed up loading up the page and seeing say an article on the Ukraine with a picture of padraig Harrington next to it and a picture of a fighter jet next to a story about golf. Minor stuff for a free offering but I won't pay for mediocrity line that.

Then there's the content itself. The journalism isn't noticeably better than anything else online imo, I do like fintan o'toole but other than that it's the syndicated stuff, krugman/wolf etc that Id read most often, which can be got elsewhere.

I'd maybe be tempted for the e-paper, mainly out of curiosity, because it's ages since I bought the paper itself, but not for 16 p/m

riaganach · 28-02-2015 5:28pm

Signed up to the €16 a month digital subscription. I suppose I'm in their demographic: a news junkie.

I wanted to support the Irish Times with a paid subscription in any case because of what Colm Keena and Geraldine Kennedy did back in 2006 to protect journalistic sources. As far as I remember, the supreme court found them in contempt last year and fined them a fair amount of money. It's a bit of a simplification but unless we pay for news content, we're going to end up with unaccountable bodies (both public and private) and increased corruption.

The Irish Times represents high quality journalism and their digital subscription business model looks right since the paywall came in on Monday. I kind of guessed they might be moving to a pay wall since their new app last year.

I also think the NYTimes started with 20 free articles a week and now it's down to 5 free per month.

I think there's far more errors appearing in the copy now, but the news cycle is so fast, that I don't mind.

One last point, I used to buy the print newspaper regularly before the smart phone era. Because I chose the €16 per month subscription, I get the e-paper edition, which is more pleasant reading experience (on a tablet specific app only though). I didn't realise that it's only the current day's e-paper that's available. The €16 euro also gives computer only (not tablet or mobile) access to the archive.

Halloween Jack · 28-02-2015 6:04pm

riaganach wrote: »

Signed up to the €16 a month digital subscription. I suppose I'm in their demographic: a news junkie.

I wanted to support the Irish Times with a paid subscription in any case because of what Colm Keena and Geraldine Kennedy did back in 2006 to protect journalistic sources. As far as I remember, the supreme court found them in contempt last year and fined them a fair amount of money. It's a bit of a simplification but unless we pay for news content, we're going to end up with unaccountable bodies (both public and private) and increased corruption.

The Irish Times represents high quality journalism and their digital subscription business model looks right since the paywall came in on Monday. I kind of guessed they might be moving to a pay wall since their new app last year.

I also think the NYTimes started with 20 free articles a week and now it's down to 5 free per month.

I think there's far more errors appearing in the copy now, but the news cycle is so fast, that I don't mind.

One last point, I used to buy the print newspaper regularly before the smart phone era. Because I chose the €16 per month subscription, I get the e-paper edition, which is more pleasant reading experience (on a tablet specific app only though). I didn't realise that it's only the current day's e-paper that's available. The €16 euro also gives computer only (not tablet or mobile) access to the archive.

Not sure that paying for content in this sense has anything to do with a vibrant free press that holds governments etc to account.

There's an an increasing amount of evidence that the free press is something of an illusion in the first place, across the anglophone world.

When you have the so called bastion of liberal thought the guardian sacking journalists for writing anti-Israel articles and pulling stories that negatively effect key advertisers you realise that the media aren't what you thought they were...

Calhoun · 28-02-2015 6:15pm

I'd rather not be supporting a mouth piece like Una Mually, as far as online content goes i think it can be very slow to update.

I think for online content it just doesn't have the bang for its buck.

Wilburn · 28-02-2015 6:19pm

I can still get the rss feed free?

mikom · 28-02-2015 6:25pm

Calhoun wrote: »

I'd rather not be supporting a mouth piece like Una Mually, as far as online content goes i think it can be very slow to update.

I think for online content it just doesn't have the bang for its buck.

A portion of your subscription also goes to pay their columnist Breda O'Brien's wages.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15qCrcFuCOA

One reason I will never pay a cent to the Irish Times.

Loafing Oaf · 28-02-2015 6:39pm

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Not sure that paying for content in this sense has anything to do with a vibrant free press that holds governments etc to account.

There's an an increasing amount of evidence that the free press is something of an illusion in the first place, across the anglophone world.

When you have the so called bastion of liberal thought the guardian sacking journalists for writing anti-Israel articles and pulling stories that negatively effect key advertisers you realise that the media aren't what you thought they were...

Better to have no paid-for journalism at all then, just guys in their parents' attics spouting off on blogs. They definitely know what's going on...

expectationlost · 28-02-2015 6:44pm

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Better to have no paid-for journalism at all then, just guys in their parents' attics spouting off on blogs. They definitely know what's going on...

the Irish Times is at least half that already they just get paid to do it, they are called columnists.

mikom · 28-02-2015 6:54pm

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Better to have no paid-for journalism at all then, just guys in their parents' attics spouting off on blogs. They definitely know what's going on...

Anne Frank did.......

riaganach · 28-02-2015 7:58pm

mikom wrote: »

A portion of your subscription also goes to pay their columnist Breda O'Brien's wages.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15qCrcFuCOA

One reason I will never pay a cent to the Irish Times.

I think that most left leaning papers will offer a wider variety of views. If you only pay for the news and opinions that you agree with then, you ain't seeing the big picture.

I'm not a fan of her opinions either but I appreciate that she's offered a regular slot.

mikom · 28-02-2015 8:02pm

riaganach wrote: »

I think that most left leaning papers will offer a wider variety of views. If you only pay for the news and opinions that you agree with then, you ain't seeing the big picture.

If the big picture involves keeping Breda O'Brien in alter wafers, then I prefer the thumbnail sketch.

riaganach · 28-02-2015 8:11pm

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Not sure that paying for content in this sense has anything to do with a vibrant free press that holds governments etc to account.

There's an an increasing amount of evidence that the free press is something of an illusion in the first place, across the anglophone world.

When you have the so called bastion of liberal thought the guardian sacking journalists for writing anti-Israel articles and pulling stories that negatively effect key advertisers you realise that the media aren't what you thought they were...

Well, if people don't pay then the news organisation will cease to trade. The print business model is not sustainable.

Agree with your point about it being an illusion, but at least the Irish Times and, to be fair, many other Irish news sources, do attempt to check facts before printing/broadcasting. If we don't have fact checkers, then everything becomes opinion and we end up with a Fox news like media.

The sway of advertisers e.g. HSBC in the Telegraph and your example of the Guardian, or even the Irish Times own cheerleading of the property market are always going to be a problem.

It's imperfect, but I support it for its quality primarily.

algernonwilde · 28-02-2015 9:44pm

But...

The Irish Times site is TERRIBLE.

Halloween Jack · 28-02-2015 11:11pm

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Better to have no paid-for journalism at all then, just guys in their parents' attics spouting off on blogs. They definitely know what's going on...

Alternatively, pay for content that isn't beholden to corporate interests, it is out there, even if you yourself aren't aware of it.

expectationlost · 01-03-2015 3:30am

riaganach wrote: »

I think that most left leaning papers will offer a wider variety of views. If you only pay for the news and opinions that you agree with then, you ain't seeing the big picture.

I'm not a fan of her opinions either but I appreciate that she's offered a regular slot.

why should anyone get a regular slot?

riaganach · 01-03-2015 9:28am

expectationlost wrote: »

why should anyone get a regular slot?

Ideally they shouldn't. In practice, the format is relatively common.... Krugman and Maureen O'Dowd in today's NYTimes or William Safire of yesteryear, Bob Fisk in the Independent... find a cogent proponent for a viewpoint on the political spectrum and give them the gig.

Then offer everyone else the right to reply in letter format.

There are other formats too but they likely cost more.

riaganach · 01-03-2015 9:30am

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Alternatively, pay for content that isn't beholden to corporate interests, it is out there, even if you yourself aren't aware of it.

Can you give an example?

Halloween Jack · 01-03-2015 9:57am

riaganach wrote: »

Can you give an example?

Here you go:

https://www.patreon.com/nafeez

riaganach · 01-03-2015 11:50am

Halloween Jack,

Very admirable. But not the same thing.

Nafeez Ahmed looks like a courageous principled investigative journalist who is on a crusade to expose stories suppressed because they might upset vested interests.

The Irish Times is a local (with an Irish perspective) news source that is relatively comprehensive and has (in my opinion) good quality journalism.

I personally also buy the Phoenix regularly which is the closest thing to a media watcher we have here.

Raspberry Fileds · 01-03-2015 1:17pm

riaganach wrote: »

I personally also buy the Phoenix regularly which is the closest thing to a media watcher we have here.

It definitely styles itself as that. But it's questionable just how objective and truthful it is.

jmcc · 02-03-2015 1:36pm

expectationlost wrote: »

why should anyone get a regular slot?

Somewhen in the 1990s, the management of the IT decided it was cheaper to pay wafflers ("columnists") rather than to engage in real and or investigative journalism. It also became more dependent on news services and press release recycling. Now, when people have access to more news than they had access to in the 1990s, much of it for free, the only thing that the IT has left is its "columnists" and the appeal to the conceit of its readers that they are buying a high quality publication because they are high quality people.

Regards...jmcc

riaganach · 03-03-2015 12:01am

jmcc wrote: »

Somewhen in the 1990s, the management of the IT decided it was cheaper to pay wafflers ("columnists") rather than to engage in real and or investigative journalism. It also became more dependent on news services and press release recycling. Now, when people have access to more news than they had access to in the 1990s, much of it for free, the only thing that the IT has left is its "columnists" and the appeal to the conceit of its readers that they are buying a high quality publication because they are high quality people.

Regards...jmcc

I very much agree that columnists are cheaper than investigative journalists. It's a small market: they and other papers in Ireland probably can't afford too much else.

I'm also trying desperately to hide my conceit when, in humble opinion, I suggest that the Irish Times is the closest thing to quality journalism published in Ireland. Have you alternatives jmcc?

Thanks for calling us IT readers high quality though.

Regards,

riaganach

jmcc · 03-03-2015 6:17am

riaganach wrote: »

I'm also trying desperately to hide my conceit when, in humble opinion, I suggest that the Irish Times is the closest thing to quality journalism published in Ireland.

But it is not quality journalism even though the very odd article might come close.

Have you alternatives jmcc?

Apart from raw news sources? Perhaps between the lot of them, there's the makings of one good newspaper in Ireland. The 24 hour news cycle has completely banjaxed the old print model of "yesterday's news tomorrow".

Thanks for calling us IT readers high quality though.

I didn't. The IT just uses that attitude to sell newspapers.

Regards...jmcc

jaymcg91 · 03-03-2015 8:10am

Christ, I subscribe to the New York Times and only pay €5.50 a month (Student Rate admittedly). Why on earth would I pay nearly triple that to the Irish Times

.

riaganach · 03-03-2015 1:24pm

jmcc wrote: »

But it is not quality journalism even though the very odd article might come close.

Apart from raw news sources? [snip]

I don't see how you can equate "raw news sources" (and I don't even know what that means) with quality journalism. I did a quick Google of what constitutes a quality news source and on page 6 of "What is Quality Journalism And how can it be saved" by Johanna Vehkoo, she cites a survey of journalists as follows:

Merrill comes to a definition of a leading quality newspaper out of his own
surveys. These are his five rather large categories that constitute the quality
newspaper:
1) Independence; financial stability; integrity; social concern; good
writing and editing.
2) Strong opinion and interpretive emphasis; world consciousness;
non-sensationalism in articles and makeup.
3) Emphasis on politics, international relations, economics, social
welfare, cultural endeavours, education, and science.
4) Concern with getting, developing and keeping a large, intelligent,
well-educated, articulate, and technically proficient staff.
5) Determination to serve and help expand a well-educated, intellectual
readership at home and abroad; desire to appeal to, and influence,
opinion leaders everywhere.

Before I searched for the term, I would have attempted to describe quality journalism as "topical articles based on checked facts with a emphasis on keeping a focus on power and the stuff that affects people's lives". Essentially a conduit of reliable information. I also need a local/Irish slant to this as it's not sufficient to support our own democracy by reading the NYTimes or the Guardian.

If we don't hold the people and institutions to account then we don't have a functioning democracy.

jmcc · 03-03-2015 1:55pm

riaganach wrote: »

I don't see how you can equate "raw news sources" (and I don't even know what that means) with quality journalism.

Who, what, when, why, where and how. Anything else is just people telling one what to think. The IT loves to tell its readers what they should think.

If we don't hold the people and institutions to account then we don't have a functioning democracy.

And you think that the Irish Times does that?

Regards...jmcc

jmcc · 03-03-2015 1:56pm

jaymcg91 wrote: »

Christ, I subscribe to the New York Times and only pay €5.50 a month (Student Rate admittedly). Why on earth would I pay nearly triple that to the Irish Times .

Because they think they are worth it?

Regards...jmcc

riaganach · 03-03-2015 3:07pm

jmcc wrote: »

Who, what, when, why, where and how. Anything else is just people telling one what to think. The IT loves to tell its readers what they should think.

What's the raw news source for the current world cup cricket?

What's the raw news source for what's happening in the Dail, the European Parliament, the Kremlin, the Diet, Congress?

What's the raw news source for the Syrian insurrection?

You could argue that they're all available on some website or other? So, are you suggesting everyone should traipse around the internet every day to pick off the
purest of news?

The Irish Times and other newspapers are also news aggregators.

As for the Irish Times loving to tell people what to think, that sounds like a great Orwellian conspiracy. I definitely think there are columnists who argue their point. There's a distinction between news and opinion, although sometimes it can blurred.
Though, now that I think of it, I agree that news papers can influence how people think
but in a far more subtle way, by the use of language.

jmcc wrote: »

And you think that the Irish Times does that?

I never claimed it did exclusively or even all the time well. I certainly think it and many other newspapers aspire to it. What I said is that it's the closest thing to quality journalism (available locally) that I see and I think quality journalism should hold people who wield power to account.

jmcc · 03-03-2015 3:13pm

riaganach wrote: »

What's the raw news source for the current world cup cricket?

It even as its own website:
http://www.icc-cricket.com/cricket-world-cup

What's the raw news source for what's happening in the Dail,

Ditto.

the European Parliament,

Loads of websites and social media engagement.

the Kremlin, the Diet, Congress?

I'm sure that there are similar sources.

What's the raw news source for the Syrian insurrection?

Probably quite a lot of web coverage too.

You could argue that they're all available on some website or other? So, are you suggesting everyone should traipse around the internet every day to pick off the
purest of news?

No. You probably don't have the time, the ability or the expertise to do that. Until someone comes up with a smart news agent program to aggregate these sources, most people are stuck with the existing news organisations.

The Irish Times and other newspapers are also news aggregators.

That Irish Times "technology" section has a lot for which to answer.

As for the Irish Times loving to tell people what to think, that sounds like a great Orwellian conspiracy. I definitely think there are columnists who argue their point. There's a distinction between news and opinion, although sometimes it can blurred.

That's all the Irish Times has left. It has been overtaken by the 24 hour news cycle and its print sales are collapsing.

I never claimed it did exclusively or even all the time well. I certainly think it and many other newspapers aspire to it. What I said is that it's the closest thing to quality journalism (available locally) that I see and I think quality journalism should hold people who wield power to account.

It would be nice if things worked out like that but they don't.

Regards...jmcc

expectationlost · 04-03-2015 3:23pm

riaganach wrote: »

I don't see how you can equate "raw news sources" (and I don't even know what that means) with quality journalism. I did a quick Google of what constitutes a quality news source and on page 6 of "What is Quality Journalism And how can it be saved" by Johanna Vehkoo, she cites a survey of journalists as follows:

Before I searched for the term, I would have attempted to describe quality journalism as "topical articles based on checked facts with a emphasis on keeping a focus on power and the stuff that affects people's lives". Essentially a conduit of reliable information. I also need a local/Irish slant to this as it's not sufficient to support our own democracy by reading the NYTimes or the Guardian.

the IT columnists don't check their facts or have their facts checked for them as far as I can see, I'd like to proven wrong and glaring examples of incorrect facts and quotes explained.

Halloween Jack · 28-03-2015 1:12pm

Bought the print edition of the IT today. 7/28 pages on graham Dwyer, at least 2.5 pages of ads, 1 page classifieds, 1 page obituaries, 2 pages of world news, 0 pages 'holding power to account'.

Won't be buying again and certainly won't be subscribing to such a subpar web effort.

Loafing Oaf · 28-03-2015 1:22pm

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Bought the print edition of the IT today. 7/28 pages on graham Dwyer,

Guess what the current top 5 most read online IT articles are about. Seems like they're just giving people what they want...:(

Loafing Oaf · 20-04-2015 12:07am

Apologies if the rest of you were already aware of this, but I tried to 'get around' the paywall just now and this is all I had to:

- Google search for headline of article concerned

- Open link to IT Facebook page

- Open article link at the top of the page

Paygauzecurtain might be more appropriate...:P

Halloween Jack · 20-04-2015 2:49pm

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Apologies if the rest of you were already aware of this, but I tried to 'get around' the paywall just now and this is all I had to:

- Google search for headline of article concerned

- Open link to IT Facebook page

- Open article link at the top of the page

Paygauzecurtain might be more appropriate...:P

If I turn on private browsing I can seem to read more than 10 articles, although I'm hardly needing to with the quality of content...

flogen · 20-04-2015 3:41pm

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Apologies if the rest of you were already aware of this, but I tried to 'get around' the paywall just now and this is all I had to:

- Google search for headline of article concerned

- Open link to IT Facebook page

- Open article link at the top of the page

Paygauzecurtain might be more appropriate...:P

They were quite open about the fact that referrals from search engines and social media sites would not be included in a user's free weekly total. If the experience of the NYT etc is anything to go by, they'll start reigning in those kind of loopholes over time (though there will always be ways around a "leaky" paywall)

Brancott · 10-06-2015 11:12am

I may have found a glitch in their paywall matrix.

I'd used by 10 stories for this week so got the subscribe pop-up.
I later noticed an Irish Times story in my FB newsfeed, clicking on this allows you to read the full story.
As they put up nearly all their front page stories on their FB page it makes it easy to circumvent the paywall.

Obviously using a proxy is an easier option but for people who feel naughty about this then the FG workaround gives them a solution.

flogen · 10-06-2015 1:07pm

Brancott wrote: »

I may have found a glitch in their paywall matrix.

I'd used by 10 stories for this week so got the subscribe pop-up.
I later noticed an Irish Times story in my FB newsfeed, clicking on this allows you to read the full story.
As they put up nearly all their front page stories on their FB page it makes it easy to circumvent the paywall.

Obviously using a proxy is an easier option but for people who feel naughty about this then the FG workaround gives them a solution.

It's not a glitch - it's a feature of their 'leaky' paywall. Clicks coming from social media - or Google - aren't counted towards your free allocation.

As a result there are a few ways to see the articles on there without needing to think about a proxy.

jack presley · 10-06-2015 2:06pm

flogen wrote: »

It's not a glitch - it's a feature of their 'leaky' paywall. Clicks coming from social media - or Google - aren't counted towards your free allocation.

As a result there are a few ways to see the articles on there without needing to think about a proxy.

Didn't they clarify that though and they do in fact count against the quota? Look at the last paragraph of the article below.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/media-and-marketing/the-irish-times-to-introduce-digital-subscriptions-next-week-1.2106220

On a separate matter, have they released figures for how many subscriptions there have been?

qweerty · 10-06-2015 2:37pm

jack presley wrote: »

Didn't they clarify that though and they do in fact count against the quota? Look at the last paragraph of the article below.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/media-and-marketing/the-irish-times-to-introduce-digital-subscriptions-next-week-1.2106220

On a separate matter, have they released figures for how many subscriptions there have been?

My interp of that is that you can access an unlimited number of articles through FB, but that, at the point you've accessed ten articles through FB, you won't be able to access any through the website.

jack presley · 10-06-2015 2:53pm

qweerty wrote: »

My interp of that is that you can access an unlimited number of articles through FB, but that, at the point you've accessed ten articles through FB, you won't be able to access any through the website.

Maybe you're right. I don't use Facebook so don't know for sure.

Brancott · 10-06-2015 2:55pm

qweerty wrote: »

My interp of that is that you can access an unlimited number of articles through FB, but that, at the point you've accessed ten articles through FB, you won't be able to access any through the website.

Pretty moot point anyway considering clearing your cookies resets your clock.
Tested & OK, thanks to a previous poster.

qweerty · 10-06-2015 3:00pm

I just open the article, copy-paste the headline into the search bar, click first result and I'm in. Telegraph paywall lets you see the headline for a moment but then an info box blocks the whole page. That would make my method a little bit more inconvenient.

flogen · 11-06-2015 7:00pm

jack presley wrote: »

Didn't they clarify that though and they do in fact count against the quota? Look at the last paragraph of the article below.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/media-and-marketing/the-irish-times-to-introduce-digital-subscriptions-next-week-1.2106220

On a separate matter, have they released figures for how many subscriptions there have been?

qweerty wrote: »

My interp of that is that you can access an unlimited number of articles through FB, but that, at the point you've accessed ten articles through FB, you won't be able to access any through the website.

Ah - thanks for that. Yes, it seems as though social/search clicks are free but still count to your total.

IRE60 · 19-06-2015 2:41pm

The Sun have just announced that they are reducing the stories behind the wall and making more content available for free.

The free stories will be selected by a news team and they will take into consideration the depth of coverage of their competitors on a tale.

Interestingly stories may come from behind the paywall based on 'shareability' on social media sites. More shares - higher likelihood it will be free.

Given the stats in the Reuters report from Tuesday that 36% of the UK internet population use 'social media' as a source of news ever week (staggeringly 49% here) there is pressure on publishers to follow the crowds.

expectationlost · 19-06-2015 3:02pm

IRE60 wrote: »

The Sun have just announced that they are reducing the stories behind the wall and making more content available for free.

The free stories will be selected by a news team and they will take into consideration the depth of coverage of their competitors on a tale.

Interestingly stories may come from behind the paywall based on 'shareability' on social media sites. More shares - higher likelihood it will be free.

Given the stats in the Reuters report from Tuesday that 36% of the UK internet population use 'social media' as a source of news ever week (staggeringly 49% here) there is pressure on publishers to follow the crowds.

the UK sun http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jun/19/sun-relax-paywall-social-media-facebook-twitter

Schadenfreudia · 21-06-2015 1:19am

I guess a factor not discussed much is that Reuters & agencies (a source of much of the IT non-Irish copy) is freely available.

A bigger problem for the Western MSM in general is that numerous English language sites, form indie Anglo sites, to RT, to the Times of India, China Today and dozens of others are giving their version of events for free.

The Western MSM is learning that people on-line, unlike paper readers, won't actually pay to read propaganda.

Irish Times Blinks First

Comments