Not willing to pay for the news? Deadbeats.
kthnry said:
I removed this from the Joe thread since that wasn't the place, but shame on all of you who aren't willing to pay a modest amount for thorough, informed coverage of local events. And especially those who jump through Internet hoops to get around the paywall. Why should you get their work for free? Those of you who don't pay and yet still feel entitled to access the site are the "chiselers." Get over yourselves and realize it's time to support the press.
#Preach
+1000
agree. The Village Green is a great local news site, and well worth the subscription fee.
The person who wrote, "I'm not paying 5 to some chiselers to read about a man we loved", would already have read his or her quota of free articles on Village Green this month - in other words, already uses the "chiselers" to get local news. It's surprising how some people don't realize what their words reveal about themselves.
At less than a dollar a week I would have to say that The Village Green is the best bargain around.
There are those of us who would be willing to support Village Green but do not do any financial transactions on line. Does anyone know if there is an off-line mechanism for doing this and if so what the procedure would be?
joan_crystal said:
There are those of us who would be willing to support Village Green but do not do any financial transactions on line. Does anyone know if there is an off-line mechanism for doing this and if so what the procedure would be?
http://villagegreennj.com/contact/
You know what...I despise calling the Village Green owners "chislers"...they work and would like to be paid. I hope that those who depend heavily on them and those who can easily afford to do so do subscribe.
However, I also resent the OP using the word "deadbeat" so broadly to tar all of us who don't subscribe. Part of online publishing is providing some content for free, in hopes of gaining subscribers.
I read a few articles each from an eclectic range of sources, and would welcome a solution that let me pay a reasonable amount for my broad range of reading. I have dozens of online services that I read with some regularity (NYTimes, WSJ, NJ Spotlight and a range of more specialized newsfeeds and blogs, as well as Village Green), and most of them would like a subscription or donation from me.
I've tried (before paywall) to simply give a donation to the Village Green, as I do for MOL, but their website didn't allow any amount other than the subscription (and I'm not going to address and mail an, I'm afraid), so I gave up.
For now, I only open NYTimes or Village Green articles if I'm intensely interested in the topic.
Sometime soon, I'll probably subscribe to Village Green, as their coverage continues to expand and the article limit begins to chafe. If I were still in the paid workforce, I'd probably subscribe without a second thought, and be part of the chorus castigating the frugal. But the decision to stop out of the workforce (due to a variety of family issues) is one that has put me on a more careful financial footing, and not every bargain gets purchased.
You should be happy to pay for actual local journalism. Just as you should be happy to vote. I subscribe...
-s.
there's also a difference between people who avoid a site because they don't want to pay, and those who try to come up with work arounds to get the content without paying. the former is fine. the latter is being a "deadbeat."
ml1 said:
there's also a difference between people who avoid a site because they don't want to pay, and those who try to come up with work arounds to get the content without paying. the former is fine. the latter is being a "deadbeat."
I would go with thief more than deadbeat..Getting something for free you should be paying for . But that's just me.
I eventually subscribed after resisting for quite a while when everything I wanted to read was being published by them. I realized what a valuable community resource it is and I don't want it to disappear!
I 100% agree that Village Green is a valuable service that doesn't exist in our area otherwise, and is well worth the small amount of money. Anyone circumventing their paywall is stealing, morally if not legally. A lot more work goes into that kind of reporting than most people realize. If you find what they do valuable and read enough articles to reach the limit, just pay them. They deserve it.
That said, I can imagine how it might feel if you were trying to read an obituary for somebody you were close to and you couldn't access it without paying. We should cut the "chiselers" poster a break given the circumstances.
imonlysleeping said:
That said, I can imagine how it might feel if you were trying to read an obituary for somebody you were close to and you couldn't access it without paying. We should cut the "chiselers" poster a break given the circumstances.
Give them a break? Why? They got their five free articles. What did they hope to gain by posting petty nastiness and poisoning what was otherwise a very nice thread that will probably be read by Joe's family? I'm not feeling any sympathy.
susan1014, I didn't mean for my "deadbeat" comment to apply to you or others who chose not to subscribe. I certainly don't subscribe to everything I'd like to, but I'm also not loudly complaining in inappropriate places about publication subscription policies or switching browsers to bypass restrictions.
It was a person reacting emotionally in a very emotional situation (see the post immediately following). I'm willing to give them a break given the circumstances. You don't have to.
I chose not to respond to that posting at all in the thread, hoping it would just be passed over.
I'd started a post asking the poster to move the complaint to a different thread, but deleted without posting given the clear emotional stress.
imonlysleeping said:
It was a person reacting emotionally in a very emotional situation (see the post immediately following). I'm willing to give them a break given the circumstances. You don't have to.
I can see someone a bit annoyed that they need to pay to read content that was taken from a free public site. It's like paying to see a retweet.
ml1 said:
there's also a difference between people who avoid a site because they don't want to pay, and those who try to come up with work arounds to get the content without paying. the former is fine. the latter is being a "deadbeat."
Agreed. It's a great source of community news. No one is entitled to their work. If you want their work then simply pay for it. Otherwise, be quiet.
kthnry said:
imonlysleeping said:
That said, I can imagine how it might feel if you were trying to read an obituary for somebody you were close to and you couldn't access it without paying. We should cut the "chiselers" poster a break given the circumstances.
Give them a break? Why? They got their five free articles. What did they hope to gain by posting petty nastiness and poisoning what was otherwise a very nice thread that will probably be read by Joe's family? I'm not feeling any sympathy.
susan1014, I didn't mean for my "deadbeat" comment to apply to you or others who chose not to subscribe. I certainly don't subscribe to everything I'd like to, but I'm also not loudly complaining in inappropriate places about publication subscription policies or switching browsers to bypass restrictions.
Or worse, Bets, who uses multiple devices to avoid paying.
Just a question (I have no dog in this fight): I'm not familiar with Village Green. If they're a website, do they have paid advertising like MOL does, to pay their bills?
Yes...they have paid advertising. No classifieds though, I think.
mumstheword said:
Just a question (I have no dog in this fight): I'm not familiar with Village Green. If they're a website, do they have paid advertising like MOL does, to pay their bills?
mumstheword said:
Just a question (I have no dog in this fight): I'm not familiar with Village Green. If they're a website, do they have paid advertising like MOL does, to pay their bills?
More to the point, they are not like MOL in that their content is provided by paid professional staff. A more apt comparison would be a daily newspaper which pays reporters, takes ads, and charges a subscription for home delivery.
Thank you both for the explanation -- and for not hanging me by my toes for asking a question! 
max_weisenfeld said:
mumstheword said:
Just a question (I have no dog in this fight): I'm not familiar with Village Green. If they're a website, do they have paid advertising like MOL does, to pay their bills?
More to the point, they are not like MOL in that their content is provided by paid professional staff. A more apt comparison would be a daily newspaper which pays reporters, takes ads, and charges a subscription for home delivery.
Does advertising bring in enough to pay the bills for any online publication? All of the big newspapers (WaPo, NYT, etc.) have ads as well as subscription fees. The loss of classified ads is what is killing newspapers.
kthnry said:
...The loss of classified ads is what is killing newspapers.
How does Craiglist make money? Or doesn't it?
max_weisenfeld said:
mumstheword said:
Just a question (I have no dog in this fight): I'm not familiar with Village Green. If they're a website, do they have paid advertising like MOL does, to pay their bills?
More to the point, they are not like MOL in that their content is provided by paid professional staff. A more apt comparison would be a daily newspaper which pays reporters, takes ads, and charges a subscription for home delivery.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, the best way to generate revenue from online advertising is to maximize the number of page refreshes on your site. A journalism site such as the Village Green could do that by splitting articles onto multiple different pages. I have seen some websites do that, and its really annoying. On the Village Green, you pretty much read the whole article on one page. Here on MOL the clicks come fast and often furious.
These days, advertisers care more about engagement than clicks. A paying (and thus highly engaged) audience is more valuable than artificially juiced views would be. At least the way I understand it.
It is extremely difficult for media outlets to fund the expensive business of reporting the news via advertising. Not at all the same as Craigalist or MOL, which are supporting a much smaller infrastructure.
A bit off-topic, but I'm wondering how many of the people passionate about paying Village Green are current subscribers of the Star Ledger?
I'm a passionate supporter of subscribing to them until and unless they give up all of their ability to do true investigative reporting that blows open scandals and follows the money in our often corrupt political system. It is a substantial cost and generates a lot of recycling, but the Star Ledger still fills a role that no other news outlet has taken on.
As the Star Ledger shrinks and loses advertisers, I hang in there as long as I see serious reporting and editorial thought. Whether on Chris Christie, NJ Transit, or the Passaic Valley Sewer Commission..they are breaking stories that no one else is. At this point, I kind of see it as a political/charitable contribution, subsidized by grocery coupons.
max_weisenfeld said:
mumstheword said:
Just a question (I have no dog in this fight): I'm not familiar with Village Green. If they're a website, do they have paid advertising like MOL does, to pay their bills?
More to the point, they are not like MOL in that their content is provided by paid professional staff. A more apt comparison would be a daily newspaper which pays reporters, takes ads, and charges a subscription for home delivery.
Tap Into SOMA also offers local news and is free. They are paid through their advertisers.
http://www.tapinto.net/towns/soma
How kind to publicly shame me for a post commenting about a former MOL practice that banned Maplewoodian from posting links to his journalism site without publishing the content here. Especially for a piece that was not written by a journalist on the site.
You want to call me a thief? A deadbeat? You know nothing about me or my circumstances. But thanks so much for dragging my (real) name through your sandbox. Hope you're feeling great about yourself.
kthnry said:
bets said:
Village Green gives a limited number of reads per month before requiring a subscription. It is annoying. I just use different browsers and devices if I really want to read an article that is linked.
ETA: My condolences to all who loved Joe. My former boss was a friend who is very torn up about it.
I removed this from the Joe thread since that wasn't the place, but shame on all of you who aren't willing to pay a modest amount for thorough, informed coverage of local events. And especially those who jump through Internet hoops to get around the paywall. Why should you get their work for free? Those of you who don't pay and yet still feel entitled to access the site are the "chiselers." Get over yourselves and realize it's time to support the press.
bets said:
Village Green gives a limited number of reads per month before requiring a subscription. It is annoying. I just use different browsers and devices if I really want to read an article that is linked.
ETA: My condolences to all who loved Joe. My former boss was a friend who is very torn up about it.
grocerylist said:
Yeah, I'm not paying 5 to some chiselers to read about a man we loved. Can a mod put Village Green links on auto-ban?