Get our free daily email!
-

Why Doesn’t Obama Ban Iranian Press TV? by Kenneth R. Timmerman
The Case of CH2M HILL: $2 Billion in Crony Stimulation by Rusty Weiss
The Truth about George Soros by AIM Staff
Lifting the Veil on WikiLeaks by AIM Staff
The Truth about Al-Jazeera English by Cliff Kincaid
Reaganomics and Obamanomics in the Media and in Reality by Malcolm A. Kline, Don Irvine and Spencer Irvine
How State Budget Battles Could Mean More Criminals Back on the Streets by Michael Tremoglie
Radical Muslims, Environmentalists and the Green Jihad by Mark Musser
Russian-Backed Propaganda Networks Claim Obama is a CIA Agent by Cliff Kincaid
Media Conceal True Nature of Flash Mob Racial Violence by John T. Bennett
NBC’s Mitchell Should Resign Over Telling Gaddafi’s Lies (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) by Cliff Kincaid
CASA de Maryland: The Illegals’ ACORN by James Simpson
Follow AIM on Facebook
Special Report
-
Recent Articles and Posts
- Obama Talks, America Walks (Away)
- American Family Radio; Logan Churchwell on Media’s Celebration of Obama Record
- Should Black People Tolerate This?
- Matthews Not Thrilled with Right-Wing “Jackasses”
- Obama birth certificate OK by Arizona official
- Chris Matthews Asks DNC Chair Wasserman-Schultz Where All the Obama Surrogates Are
The Newswire
Take AIM Podcast







It’s funny how newspapers rail against the paywall idea … then say their readership and bottom line are suffering because of the “internet age”, a.k.a. free content. Back before we had the internet available everywhere, on “phones” used for everything BUT voice conversation, there were a handful of newspapers that actually HAD paywalls. The Wall Street Journal has had one for years, and now sits atop of newspaper circulations list in the US—worked out bad for them, eh? The Columbus Dispatch had a paywall at one time, and they plainly stated, “why have our subscribers pick up the tab for everyone else?” You really can’t argue against that simple reasoning. Following this argument of the internet being ‘free’, why stop there? Get a former ACORN office together with some signs and storm a Sam’s Club store, claiming they’re being exclusionary and you expect entrance and purchasing power without obeying their membership rule! Sounds silly, but isn’t it a logical following of the argument?
It’s surprising that the UK Liberal rag The Guardian doesn’t cite their US counterpart, The New York Times, working towards building their own paywall, because they can’t have their own content being provided “free” profitably by ad-support alone. The Times used to work that way, until they caved to the popular notion floating in cyberland that free access somehow floats to the bottom line (eventually). The surprising part comes in that The Times, a voracious opponent of capitalism, now seeks to use that model to sustain its operations. I thought, as espoused by them, “free and equal access” (as with health care) was best?
Rupert can erect paywalls, and the world will still come. It comes down to what everyone against the idea doesn’t say in their arguments: CONTENT. Consumers, however you term them, will pay for something they see of value to them. The cable “news” channels have it reflected in their ratings, newspapers that ignore popular opinion see it in dwindling circulation figures, businesses that adopt a ‘wrong’ strategy fail and go away.
“Free” internet will still be available. By those who know how to use it.