Wait? Fark is news? I pay the $5 a month because the redlighted articles are most often the best.

If there were a news site that were as entertaining and occupied as much of my time as TotalFark, I'd probably pay more than $3 a month for it. As is, it seems clear that the user-focused model of content is the model of future success.

I spend far more per month on FFXI and Fark is more entertaining.

I never got my ocelot.

I get all my news from The Washington Times. That's no Moon.

SarahDiddle: I never got my ocelot.

Well, wax you moustache first.

No disrespect to Fark, but if there were a news aggregator like google news or yahoo news that would provide me access to news sites from around the world for five bucks a month, I'd gladly pay. Heck, I'd even go out on a limb and pay 10 bucks a month.

If the idea is to pay 3-7 dollars a month for each news outfit, that's absurd.

Expect the Hulu model, except not free. Either buy the physical paper, or pay the subscription.

Brian: Hey, Stewie... I don't suppose you would consider sponsoring me for TotalFark?
Stewie: Heh heh, Maybe... What would you be willing to do for me?
Brian: Uhh, I don't know.. what do you want?
Stewie: :D
Stewie: Squeeze the base of your tail lightly with your thumb and index finger... and then, while continuing to squeeze, run them up the length of your tail to the tip.



//Silly Liters. ;P

Hau Ruck: I spend far more per month on FFXI and Fark is more entertaining.

And the politics tab gives you something to fling your poopsock at!

rackrent: No disrespect to Fark, but if there were a news aggregator like google news or yahoo news that would provide me access to news sites from around the world for five bucks a month, I'd gladly pay. Heck, I'd even go out on a limb and pay 10 bucks a month.

Why do you want to pay for news?

Articles from the following sites will automatically be rejected:

* Sites that shut themselves down after getting a lot of traffic, like Geocities
* Ananova (long story)
* Any site requiring logins or registration to read articles

Why do NYTimes articles keep getting greenlit?

Sun God:

Why do you want to pay for news?

Similarly, why do people still pay for porn?

I find this absurd.

Local TV channels do not charge for news. They are already broadcasting, and we already have TVs. No need to charge.

Newspapers charge because they have to print their shiat. We can't supply the paper to be printed on, so we shell out the 23.2 cents a day to receive it, mostly because we need something to let our pets shiat on.

Internet news sort of falls in between. They wouldn't be broadcasting if they didn't have a way to generate revenues. So they should have ad supported sites. Oh wait, they already have those? Then why pay? $3 is not worth removing ads that I pay NO attention to anyway.

I don't see this catching on, mostly because there will always be someone who is willing to re-post the news for free and be ad supported themselves.

unyon: Expect the Hulu model, except not free

Hulu is going paid

Jarod Cain: Sun God:

Why do you want to pay for news?

Similarly, why do people still pay for porn?

Similarly, how much per month do you pay for gay porn?

/straw

at80eighty: unyon: Expect the Hulu model, except not free

Hulu is going paid

Well that will be the end of that unless it's dirt cheap.

Paying for access to any website is dumb.

MIguy: Paying for access to any website is dumb.

Hahaha. Great headline, but maybe it's my disgust at the apparent arrogance and conceit that the club members have for people that opted to not pay.
Part of the list of "reasons Fark isn't as cool as it used to be" IMO.

God-is-a-Taco: Hahaha. Great headline, but maybe it's my disgust at the apparent arrogance and conceit that the club members have for people that opted to not pay.
Part of the list of "reasons Fark isn't as cool as it used to be" IMO.

Britney Spear's Speculum:
I wonder if posting the attention whore picture is still an actionable offense. We could have a picture battle. Well, imagine the attention whore picture here:

[]

crab66: Well that will be the end of that unless it's dirt cheap.

pretty much what most say - It's still up in the air depending on Comcast's partnership interest, but by most accounts this is what the likely future is:



The fateful revelation from Chase Carey, President, Chief Operating Officer (COO), and Deputy Chairman of News Corporation (which co-owns Hulu), stating the days of freebies were drawing to an end.

States Mr. Carey, "I think a free model is a very difficult way to capture the value of our content. I think what we need to do is deliver that content to consumers in a way where they will appreciate the value," Carey said. "Hulu concurs with that, it needs to evolve to have a meaningful subscription model as part of its business."

What is this "news" we are presumably going to pay for?

Whee, kids, it turns out that in turn for allowing some minor privileges and a vague feeling of superiority, you too can have a business model.

/yes, I pay my fiver

Jarod Cain: Sun God:

Why do you want to pay for news?

Similarly, why do people still pay for porn?

so i can get it for free.

Well, this is egg-on-the-face of everyone laughing at Rupert Murdoch being out of touch.

Probably you will see a division of the web into sources of high-quality news producers (like The Economist) which will charge subscriptions or allow micro-payments for views, and the blogosphere which will provide headline aggregation (Fark) and lower quality paraphrase or op-ed.

at80eighty: unyon: Expect the Hulu model, except not free

Hulu is going paid to fail.

You're good to go now...

Well I hope not before my one year obligation to my DSL provider is up, dumb asses. I'd be free watch the sun rise and set and to tell people to get hell off my lawn. My wife could stop her attitude. I know she is close its been 31 years. I figure she is like a slot machine, I'm waiting for the pay off so she will leave me the hell alone. Ewwwww shut the hell up.

Trick E. Dick: I find this absurd.

Local TV channels do not charge for news. They are already broadcasting, and we already have TVs. No need to charge.


My local NBC affiliate recently ran a hyped segment on ball tapping in area high schools. For three days, they aired ominous advertisements on their own network and several radio stations for this five minute segment about kids hitting each other in the crotch. 'Cuz, you know, that's newsworthy and all.

Absurdity would be these sensationalist asshats charging for their programming.

"Skittles could be killing your children! Find out tomorrow on the morning show." (true story)

Ya, I'd much rather pay a reasonable fee for a service that delivers relevant information in a succinct and timely manner.

There's pretty much only one idea that you can bring up on fark that will get your post deleted and possibly you banned. And, this is exactly the thread in which to bring it up. Ye shall mock everything except the bottom line.

Trick E. Dick: I find this absurd.

Local TV channels do not charge for news. They are already broadcasting, and we already have TVs. No need to charge.

Local TV is charging you. If you are on cable, chances are very good a big chunk of that recent rate increase went to pay for "retransmission consent" to the stations. In many markets, the local stations are now charging you, through the cable system, a dollar a month per station to receive their signals. You are paying for "free," over-the-air televivion. You just don't know it.

Kaiser Bill's Batman: Local TV is charging you. If you are on cable, chances are very good a big chunk of that recent rate increase went to pay for "retransmission consent" to the stations. In many markets, the local stations are now charging you, through the cable system, a dollar a month per station to receive their signals. You are paying for "free," over-the-air televivion. You just don't know it.

And for the people who don't use cable / satellite?

drosie: Trick E. Dick: I find this absurd.

Local TV channels do not charge for news. They are already broadcasting, and we already have TVs. No need to charge.


My local NBC affiliate recently ran a hyped segment on ball tapping in area high schools. For three days, they aired ominous advertisements on their own network and several radio stations for this five minute segment about kids hitting each other in the crotch. 'Cuz, you know, that's newsworthy and all.

Absurdity would be these sensationalist asshats charging for their programming.

"Skittles could be killing your children! Find out tomorrow on the morning show." (true story)

Ya, I'd much rather pay a reasonable fee for a service that delivers relevant information in a succinct and timely manner.

Calling what newspapers print "relevant" is a gross overstatement. Typically they all print the same things as each other, and usually it's what I already would have heard 5 times on a 24 hour news network. Twitter is more relevant than most news outlets, and for now, it's probably going to stay free.

If that's $3/month/SITE you can count me out.

I'd end up paying more for news than for food & drink.

That's incredible: That's more than we pay for any single magazine subscription but the Economist, and my wife gets our mailbox stuffed to the brim with the stuff. Unless they're talking about extremely wide-ranging international aggregators with a serious value-ad (ala comped 3g delivery to eInk and access to primary sources ala scholarly journals and/or JSTOR), they can forget about it. Not like they'll ever kill Fair Use enough in the States to kill secondary coverage in the blogosphere, and government-funded news feeds from the BBC, Al Jazy, et al ain't goin' nowhere, and everyone knows it.

What this really means is gentrification of newspapers. Who's going to bother to pay that isn't rolling in it like current newspaper subscribers and folks with cash to waste on TF?

/Having worked in cable, though, it's clear enough that people wouldn't notice if this was dumped on their ISP bill.
//$5-10/month of my basic cable bill was shovelled over to sports channels I never watched, back when I was able to get a cable or satellite subscription. Couldn't complain/all the competition was just as bad.

Oobedoob Scoobi-Doobi Benubi: drosie: Trick E. Dick: I find this absurd.

Local TV channels do not charge for news. They are already broadcasting, and we already have TVs. No need to charge.


My local NBC affiliate recently ran a hyped segment on ball tapping in area high schools. For three days, they aired ominous advertisements on their own network and several radio stations for this five minute segment about kids hitting each other in the crotch. 'Cuz, you know, that's newsworthy and all.

Absurdity would be these sensationalist asshats charging for their programming.

"Skittles could be killing your children! Find out tomorrow on the morning show." (true story)

Ya, I'd much rather pay a reasonable fee for a service that delivers relevant information in a succinct and timely manner.

Calling what newspapers print "relevant" is a gross overstatement. Typically they all print the same things as each other, and usually it's what I already would have heard 5 times on a 24 hour news network. Twitter is more relevant than most news outlets, and for now, it's probably going to stay free.

Wow...That's wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start.

First, tv "news" isn't news. It's a soundbite, or headlines if you prefer. There's a reason why local newscasts either subscribe to the local paper or are given access to the paper's news budgets (lists of what stories are scheduled to run when, along with a brief description of the story) in the case of cross-media ownership as with The Dallas Morning News and WFAA-TV (channel 8).

Great for the ADHD crowd, but it isn't creating an informed public.

There are exception in the case of national specialty programs, but they're necessarily going to focus on issues with national interest.

I can state unequivocally, I have never seen a local tv news crew at a city council meeting or school board meeting. Likewise, you might see a crew show up at court for a high-profile indictment or verdict, but you won't have seen prior coverage of the investigation or trial coverage.

Bottom line, when it comes down to actual reporting and particularly in-depth investigative reporting, you're only going to find it one place. In print publications. Might be the local daily, might be the local alt. weekly, but it'll be a print publication.

Just curious but how many TFers have denied sponsoring previous TFers just to watch them flounder in their TF grey-out? C'mon now, own up. I know you're out there.

There's no shame like a TFer turned liter begging for sponsorship.

Must be you farks, because I ain't willing to drop a dime on it.

MIguy: Paying for access to any website is dumb.

Correct, I will never pay for anything on the internet that isn't going to come in the mail.

Farkwaddle: Just curious but how many TFers have denied sponsoring previous TFers just to watch them flounder in their TF grey-out? C'mon now, own up. I know you're out there.

There's no shame like a TFer turned liter begging for sponsorship.

Yes there is, but only if you remember what FARK.COM used to be.

i did totalfark for one month, but i didn't find it more entertaining then the basic version. plus i'm broke.

MIguy: Paying for access to any website is dumb.

As dumb as dropping money in a street musician's guitar case?

I sponsor people, but I'll be damned if I buy it for myself.

Karma313th: Oobedoob Scoobi-Doobi Benubi: drosie: Trick E. Dick: I find this absurd.

Local TV channels do not charge for news. They are already broadcasting, and we already have TVs. No need to charge.


My local NBC affiliate recently ran a hyped segment on ball tapping in area high schools. For three days, they aired ominous advertisements on their own network and several radio stations for this five minute segment about kids hitting each other in the crotch. 'Cuz, you know, that's newsworthy and all.

Absurdity would be these sensationalist asshats charging for their programming.

"Skittles could be killing your children! Find out tomorrow on the morning show." (true story)

Ya, I'd much rather pay a reasonable fee for a service that delivers relevant information in a succinct and timely manner.

Calling what newspapers print "relevant" is a gross overstatement. Typically they all print the same things as each other, and usually it's what I already would have heard 5 times on a 24 hour news network. Twitter is more relevant than most news outlets, and for now, it's probably going to stay free.

Wow...That's wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start.

First, tv "news" isn't news. It's a soundbite, or headlines if you prefer. There's a reason why local newscasts either subscribe to the local paper or are given access to the paper's news budgets (lists of what stories are scheduled to run when, along with a brief description of the story) in the case of cross-media ownership as with The Dallas Morning News and WFAA-TV (channel 8).

Great for the ADHD crowd, but it isn't creating an informed public.

There are exception in the case of national specialty programs, but they're necessarily going to focus on issues with national interest.

I can state unequivocally, I have never seen a local tv news crew at a city council meeting or school board meeting. Likewise, you might see a crew show up at court for a high-profile indictment or verdict, but you won't have seen prior coverage of the investigation or trial coverage.

Bottom line, when it comes down to actual reporting and particularly in-depth investigative reporting, you're only going to find it one place. In print publications. Might be the local daily, might be the local alt. weekly, but it'll be a print publication.

Also, networks in my old market were paid by most people/all but the few who pulled it 'em down over-the-air. Cable & satellite subscribers do pump some (arguably unnecessary) carriage fees to the network through their subscription models. Here's a recent WSJ piece on the topic, but searching for "carriage fees" turns up plenty more.