If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LAObserved)   Newspapers should shut down their Web sites for a week just to get back at all the selfish jerks who read the paper online for free   (laobserved.com) divider line 38
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

1245 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 09 Feb 2009 at 4:06 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



38 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2009-02-09 01:03:59 PM  
Yeah, this'll happen.
 
2009-02-09 01:12:54 PM  
Go ahead.

I'll change my home page from Boston.com, the Boston Globe online, to CNN. I won't miss very much, but the NYT company will lose advertising hits from the amount of times I *don't* open a new browser.
 
2009-02-09 01:30:34 PM  
The only thing that might do is reduce their web traffic in the long term. You can't fight the new media, you have to play it for what it is, or you'll be left in the dust.
 
2009-02-09 01:32:07 PM  
Bitter much?

Things change... roll with it.
 
2009-02-09 01:34:40 PM  
Maybe they should do this in order to finally realize that we get our news from a hell of a lot of sites that aren't newspapers.
 
2009-02-09 01:36:10 PM  
nekom: The only thing that might do is reduce their web traffic in the long term. You can't fight the new media, you have to play it for what it is, or you'll be left in the dust.

The RIAA disagrees.
 
2009-02-09 01:38:37 PM  
EvilEgg: nekom: The only thing that might do is reduce their web traffic in the long term. You can't fight the new media, you have to play it for what it is, or you'll be left in the dust.

The RIAA disagrees.


They will hopefully die do to self inflicted anger wounds

/I really do hope they all just die of aneurysms.
 
2009-02-09 01:39:49 PM  
How about a week without actually printing the paper and only being available on-line? Other then the Sunday coupons, most people won't miss much, and the environment will suffer less.
 
2009-02-09 01:46:58 PM  
EvilEgg:

The RIAA disagrees.

Yep, and look how bad things have gone for that industry. They're (sort of) catching up now, but if they had embraced the internets from the get go, my guess is they'd be in MUCH better shape now.
 
2009-02-09 01:52:52 PM  
It's time for every daily newspaper in the United States, in cooperation with the Associated Press, to shut down their free Web sites for one week.

Heheh I still have Reuters and a hundred other media sites to choose from you nitwit.
 
2009-02-09 01:55:41 PM  
I don't even bother to read the newspaper online anymore. I just read the newspaper blogs about what's in the paper.
 
2009-02-09 01:57:09 PM  
JerseyTim: I just read the newspaper blogs about what's in the paper.

I just wait for the blogs to be posted here.

I'm not informed, I'm Farked!
 
2009-02-09 02:15:39 PM  
Shut 'em down. There's not nearly enough boobies in the newspaper anyway.
 
2009-02-09 02:21:25 PM  
It's time for every daily newspaper in the United States, in cooperation with the Associated Press, to shut down their free Web sites for one week.

Sure, go ahead, the backlash will be frightening.
I still get the paper because I can't carry my computer under my arm into the can.
 
2009-02-09 02:28:48 PM  
As someone in charge of the daily online operations of several newspapers, I have to say this is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard.

Newspapers are fighting to make their online operations as lucrative as their print counterparts and your idea is to cease operations for a week all the while acknowledging that the print product "would never do this"?

Moran.

If anything you need to be spearheading a "make our web sites 10x more robust for a week" campaign.
 
2009-02-09 02:30:04 PM  
lajimi: .
I still get the paper because I can't carry my computer under my arm into the can.


Get a laptop. My boyfriend will spend 20 minutes in there with his. I have no idea what's going on, and I really don't want to.
 
2009-02-09 02:32:42 PM  
I'm pretty sure that what Jefferson found important was the information, not the medium in which it is transferred.
 
2009-02-09 02:37:23 PM  
This chode equates the dying of newspapers (read: the physical printed paper) with the dying of journalism. Sure, journalists are effected by the medium shift, but the demand for their product (information) is greater than ever and continuing to grow.
 
2009-02-09 03:17:11 PM  
just to get back at all the selfish jerks who read the paper online for free

www.oasisfinland.fi
 
2009-02-09 04:13:26 PM  
Meh, who cares. Newspapers aren't about news it's about eyeballs for advertisers. It's about celebrity gossip and making your home pretty on a budget and how sally scored 12 points in the basketball game last night.

It's about selling ads, period.
 
2009-02-09 04:17:43 PM  
Oh dear. What will FARK do then?
 
2009-02-09 04:19:58 PM  
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=4199243#bwhat_now: Go ahead.

I'll change my home page from Boston.com, the Boston Globe online, to CNN. I won't miss very much, but the NYT company will lose advertising hits from the amount of times I *don't* open a new browser.


Hm. Methinks someone doesn't understand how online advertising makes money. Is your browser set to autoclick one of those ads when it opens? If not, then you're not costing them money by using another homepage, you're saving them bandwidth costs. So go ahead and save them money. That'll show them.
 
2009-02-09 04:21:37 PM  
I've always found that businesses are best served by treating their customers in a spiteful, passive-aggressive way. Success is often attained by short-changing your current customers and making potential customers wary and suspicious of your organization.

//I can haz job as biznizz consultint?
 
2009-02-09 04:21:53 PM  
what_now: lajimi: .
I still get the paper because I can't carry my computer under my arm into the can.

Get a laptop. My boyfriend will spend 20 minutes in there with his. I have no idea what's going on, and I really don't want to.


Oh you can find out easily, just look at his streaming webcam site, i'll give you a link if you need it.
 
2009-02-09 04:23:29 PM  
Hey... see that thing in the middle of your face? Yeah, with the two holes near the bottom. Well, turns out, you need that.

If you cut it off, you're just going to spite your face. Not recommended.
 
2009-02-09 04:29:56 PM  
Time's (not The Times) cover story this week is about the death of conventional archaic media.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/current
 
2009-02-09 04:31:31 PM  
barc0001: Hm. Methinks someone doesn't understand how online advertising makes money. Is your browser set to autoclick one of those ads when it opens? If not, then you're not costing them money by using another homepage, you're saving them bandwidth costs. So go ahead and save them money. That'll show them.

Some ads are based not on a Cost Per Click basis but based on number of times that ad is loaded/viewed.

/me thinks someone doesn't know entirely how internet advertising OR HTML works...
 
2009-02-09 04:35:20 PM  
This seems like something they should have thought of from the beginning.
 
2009-02-09 05:21:26 PM  
Mostly older people are the only ones that still read newspapers daily anyway. Most other people keep us with events as they happen throughout the day via internet, tv, radio.

The newspaper is going the way of the telegraph. It's only chance to survive is to focus on local news. Internet can't beat it there.

The Associated Press in print is useless. That news is at least 12 hours old by the time you read it in a newspaper and the national sports coverage is trampled by internet coverage.
 
2009-02-09 05:21:57 PM  
I prefer on-line news because my sleazy neighbor can't steal it out of my driveway before I can pick it up every morning. I get the online versions of the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, SF Chronicle, and the Wall Street Journal everyday. Do you have any idea how much paper that would be in a week's time if I got them as traditional newspapers? (Provided my neighbor didn't steal them.)
 
2009-02-09 05:41:44 PM  
EvilEgg: nekom: The only thing that might do is reduce their web traffic in the long term. You can't fight the new media, you have to play it for what it is, or you'll be left in the dust.

The RIAA disagrees.


Q.E.D.
 
2009-02-09 05:50:49 PM  
Progress should always be punished.
 
2009-02-09 06:17:45 PM  
So all those ads on the side of the story... they aren't making money off that? Things change. Get over it.
 
2009-02-09 08:41:21 PM  
Awesome idea. Why not charge for web access and stop printing for a week to save about a million trees and a few billion gallons.

People would just go to the tv sites, and the AP and Reuters would still give out their info... so we'd get news there.

Look at a lot of the big blogs like Townhall, Kos and Huffington Post, etc. A lot of those writers write volumous amounts for free.

Wouldn't affect anything one iota. Just deal with it, your industry is dead.
 
2009-02-09 09:08:33 PM  
hahawinnipeg: People would just go to the tv sites, and the AP and Reuters would still give out their info... so we'd get news there.

Look at a lot of the big blogs like Townhall, Kos and Huffington Post, etc. A lot of those writers write volumous amounts for free.

Wouldn't affect anything one iota.


Your ignorance of news media is astounding.
 
2009-02-09 10:15:40 PM  
I'd love to see the dailies do this.

Then again I work for a small town bi-weekly and several weeklies and we'd make a killing.

/Although I'd like them to wait until we have a better web infrastructure
 
2009-02-09 10:49:12 PM  
I get all my news from Fark....and blabby people at work.
 
2009-02-10 09:10:45 AM  
As someone who works at a newspaper in the Online Web Edition department, I am getting a kick out of these replies.
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report