Boston Globe drops paywall for Marathon coverage

[93Devil]

If a newspaper is a charity, then this is a good idea.

If a separate URL needs to be created for emergency information, then create that, or set up the front page with basic details. Have people pay to read more in depth information.

 

[JRoyal]

There is an element of civic responsibility at play, particularly with some of what the Globe was doing as far as setting up ways for people to contact each other, find places to stay, etc.

That being said, when a hurricane hits Florida, Publix doesn't give away water and Home Depot doesn't give away generators. And all those emergency responders are going to get paid for the hours they worked too.

I've seen plenty of businesses donate water and food and other items after tornadoes and other major disasters. If you think no businesses donated items from their stores after the Joplin tornado, for example, you didn't read much coverage of the Joplin tornado.

When their is a major disaster/event in a newspaper's circulation area, it is good, responsible business sense to make access free. Not doing so would simply drive potential readers to free sites for TV stations, drive a wedge between the paper and the community, and, most importantly, pretty much ignore every important tenet of journalism about serving the public.

Sometimes it's not about money. And sometimes that's good for business.

 

[FileNotFound]

On Sept. 11, 2001, the metropolitan newspaper for which I worked at the time did in fact give away the afternoon Extra edition we did.

 

[Captain Obvious]

There is an element of civic responsibility at play, particularly with some of what the Globe was doing as far as setting up ways for people to contact each other, find places to stay, etc.

That being said, when a hurricane hits Florida, Publix doesn't give away water and Home Depot doesn't give away generators. And all those emergency responders are going to get paid for the hours they worked too.

Some element of civic responsibility, as well as knowing the website will attract a whole bunch of eyeballs from around the world.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Good arguments on both sides here. I understand the civic responsibility angle. I understand the idea that you don't want to marginalize yourself by putting your content behind a paywall. I also understand the idea that you are conditioning people to expect news for free.

Here's an issue I have with it: By rescuing this particular story from behind the paywall, are you implying that this is the moral/ethical/right way to do things? That charging people for the news - your product - is somehow, if not reprehensible, at the very least low-rent?

I'm curious, because I don't remember: Did the WSJ and NYT take down the paywall for Newtown coverage?

 

[Versatile]

Why not only take down the paywall for the lead news story? Then you can include in that story engaging links to your other content, but you still are giving everyone the hard news. It's like letting people at the fruit stand try one grape. Some people only want one, but others will buy the bunch if it's good enough.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Why not only take down the paywall for the lead news story? Then you can include in that story engaging links to your other content, but you still are giving everyone the hard news. It's like letting people at the fruit stand try one grape. Some people only want one, but others will buy the bunch if it's good enough.

I think this is probably the best solution.

 

[JRoyal]

Why not only take down the paywall for the lead news story? Then you can include in that story engaging links to your other content, but you still are giving everyone the hard news. It's like letting people at the fruit stand try one grape. Some people only want one, but others will buy the bunch if it's good enough.

I think this is probably the best solution.

I could see doing something like this, but I think it would need to be a handful of stories -- the main news story, a separate page with lists of places stranded runners can stay, maybe one or two more with running updates on information in a feed like they had on their main page yesterday.

Then you can still limit access to photo galleries and videos and the rest of the content on your site that isn't bombing related.

 

[JRoyal]

Here's an issue I have with it: By rescuing this particular story from behind the paywall, are you implying that this is the moral/ethical/right way to do things? That charging people for the news - your product - is somehow, if not reprehensible, at the very least low-rent?

I think by taking it from behind the paywall, all your saying is that when a tragedy strikes, it's more important for you as a newspaper to be part of the community than to make money off the tragedy. Like I said before, there are lots of businesses that donate products or services to charity groups during disasters and other community-rocking events. For newspapers, this is a way to do that. Just because a store donates water to the Red Cross after a flood or hurricane, no one thinks that store is low-rent for charging for it later.

 

[Alma]

Why not only take down the paywall for the lead news story? Then you can include in that story engaging links to your other content, but you still are giving everyone the hard news. It's like letting people at the fruit stand try one grape. Some people only want one, but others will buy the bunch if it's good enough.

I think this is probably the best solution.

I agree.

Look, I'm not trying to be heartless here. What the Globe did is a kind thing, I suppose. But there's nothing wrong with intrinsically recognizing your own value and trusting others won't. The Boston cops working overtime in their aftermath -- will get their overtime. The Globe has many hard-working professionals doing good work on this story.

 

[Versatile]

Also, why should your Red Sox-Rays coverage be free because there was an unrelated incident in another part of town? Why should a feature about one of the victims be free? Why should exclusive video be free?

Give the people what they need. I can understand that level of compassion. But giving away the cow on the day when you can most easily sell it is a poor strategy, the type that brought us here.

 

[93Devil]

Or, write 100 words or 200 words with the basic facts and link inside to the information and photos that cost money.