The old adage goes - in all of its cheeky, grammatical incorrectness - "e;There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."e; It's why a colorful, blinking ad on your computer screen promising you a free iPad will give you a computer virus instead. It's why a
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
|
The old adage goes – in all of its cheeky, grammatical incorrectness – “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.”
It’s why a colorful, blinking ad on your computer screen promising you a free iPad will give you a computer virus instead. It’s why a “free gift” always requires a purchase or commitment of some kind beforehand. It’s why even the sacred concept of “free speech” comes with some pretty serious strings attached.
It’s also why more and more newspapers are going the route of implementing paywalls on their digital versions online.
For a long time, the internet turned that old adage on its head in regards to newspapers – which gave everything they would normally charge for to read in a physical paper away for free, without any strings attached.
When newspapers were still plentiful, profitable and the internet was viewed as some silly fad that periodically told you in a robotic voice you had one of those newfangled “e-mails,” this wasn’t really a big deal. But in the decades since, as that so-called fad became an undeniable, inextricable part of our everyday lives, this created a terminal problem for newspapers. They had unknowingly conditioned their own customers to being able to access their services online, for free, and trying to put that genie back in the bottle was no simple task.
But trying to close Pandora’s Box has now become essential. It’s no secret that newspapers are folding or selling to conglomerates seemingly by the week. Those that wish to survive or remain independent of a corporate takeover have to figure out an answer to a seemingly impossible question: How do you get people to pay for a service they’ve come to expect for free, or think they can get free elsewhere?
Bipartisan legislative efforts proposed by politicians such as Rep. David Cicilline and Georgia’s Rep. Doug Collins, which would attempt to break the stranglehold that huge tech companies such as Google and Facebook have on newspapers, do give us some hope. The ability for these companies to reap the benefits from the hard work of journalists while giving no real benefit back to them – and simultaneously stealing away a majority of online revenue in ads from businesses that used to advertise in their local papers – is certainly an area that should be examined and improved.
But in the meantime, most news organizations haven’t found the answer to that crucial question above. Larger entities, like the New York Times and Washington Post, have been able to bolster their huge audiences – and, in the latter’s case, utilize the support of billionaire ownership to try out new models for securing digital subscriptions – and are actually seeing growth and profit from simply asking people to pay for the content they painstakingly create.
But not every newspaper can be the Times or the Post. They have hundreds of reporters and editors working every day in all corners of the globe to provide extensive and worthwhile coverage. For smaller dailies and weeklies and twice-weeklies (like this publication), there is often only a skeleton crew or single person doing the job of multiple people, and little to no margin for error when trying to switch up a financial model that may alienate potential new members of an online audience.
Unfortunately, the problem will not go away by ignoring it. The only solution to the problem is to ask you, the reader, to pay a reasonable price for the work that your local reporters, freelancers, publishers, advertising reps, production staff and photographers do to try and make your world more informed and a little more vibrant.
Hence, this is why the Beacon – which has always been free online, always been independently-owned and has always charged a more than reasonable fee for its subscribers – will be moving toward a paywall for its online content. More details on when the move will take place, how much it will cost, and precisely what options will be available will be forthcoming. But we felt it was important to give a proper heads-up.
Those who already pay for a print subscription will automatically have access to online content, without interruption. However, those who currently enjoy reading articles online for free will soon be faced with a few important questions of their own to answer.
Do you feel that local reporting – dedicated coverage and analysis of the issues that most affect your day-to-day life – is worth paying for? Do you enjoy your little victories, major milestones and children’s achievements being chronicled? Would your life be less informed and a little less vibrant without the content we produce here at the Beacon? Is it worth paying a nominal fee – an amount lower than you’ll likely spend in one month on your morning coffee – in order to access the full breadth of our content anywhere, any time, for an entire year?
We certainly hope we know the answer to those questions. Our passion for providing a difficult, unique service for the benefit of our community is why we’re here – and our desire to continue providing that service in the way that you deserve is why we have to ask these questions of you now.
13 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Justanidiot
i guess i will have to go back to spray painting my ideas on subway walls and tenement halls
Thursday, January 30, 2020 Report this
Jsimmy230
The Beacon, like all other fake news agencies in US, is bought and paid for. I have witnessed it many times personally. I have given John Howell information on corruption by a friend of his, Councilwoman Donna Travis, and he refused to publish it, even though the RI Ethics Commission later used the same information to find her guilty of several ethics violations. I also gave him information about improper actions by the WPD, that involved this same Councilwoman. He never published that either. During the Avedisian administration, he was just a City cheerleader, because the City lowered the reevaluation on of his Beacin property on Warwick Ave, which means lower taxes paid to the City, while at the same time he was making money from a City contract to print their legal notices. When you lay with DOGS, you get fleas, and the BEACON is so infested they will never stop itching!
Thursday, January 30, 2020 Report this
Cat2222
And yet, here you are. Commenting in his so-called flea-ridden online newspaper. Where he gives you an outlet to voice your opinions even if they go against what he may personally believe. Fake news is synonymous with news you don't agree with so it is highly subjective.
Friday, January 31, 2020 Report this
Jsimmy230
As always, I just state the truth. I don't pay for access to his flea ridden rag, but I bet you do, and will!
Friday, January 31, 2020 Report this
Jsimmy230
"With news, you'll get what you pay for."
What a fitting title to this story....lol
Warwick, its corrupt politicians, and agencies, all get what they paid for. A yes man that owns a newspaper!
Friday, January 31, 2020 Report this
Justanidiot
put up a paywall and you are going to see readership drop. likewise pithy and insightful comments on the electronic side of the news.
Monday, February 3, 2020 Report this
Cat2222
You know John, your "truth" is simply your opinion. Having an opinion doesn't make it true. Many of us call it unhinged but again, just opinion and not fact.
Monday, February 3, 2020 Report this
Jsimmy230
Cat
So you're calling me a liar? What does that make you, hinged?
I gave him the information I said I did, and he did nothing with it.
If you don't believe me ASK HOWELL.
Maybe you CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
Tuesday, February 4, 2020 Report this
Former User
Cat, as you know, I've been reading this website for about a year, and I've often wondered how the Beacon could allow such a free-for-all on its comment boards. I also imagine the Beacon staff thinks they'll address these issues by imposing a paywall, but a paywall by itself won't accomplish that.
What the site has been lacking (except in the worst cases) is moderation of comments -- meaning, instead of waiting until there are 100+ comments dominated by two or three angry people, the editors should be reviewing the comments as they are submitted.
They should also expect and prepare for some commenters to howl about what they think the First Amendment means -- except the Beacon isn't Congress, and as the owners of the website they have every right to decide what's appropriate to be on it, including comments from people who decide to use it. The First Amendment doesn't force newspapers to let people say anything they want on a privately owned website.
I'm going to wait and see how much the Beacon is asking, and whether they plan to be proactive about moderating comments, before I make any commitment to pay.
Tuesday, February 4, 2020 Report this
Jsimmy230
I told Howell he should not allow commentors to use whatever name they want for each individual post. He should confirm email addresses, or if possible real names of the users, and automatically load that ID, not allowing the same users to troll by using fake names for each individual post as it is done. I use my real name, always have, and always will. The keyboard tough guy COWARDS, would possibly limit the trolling comments if the Beacon did that.
Tuesday, February 4, 2020 Report this
Justanidiot
mr simoneau i post in the spirit of publius.
Tuesday, February 4, 2020 Report this
Cat2222
Hillsgrove Hal,
I agree with you that a moderator would help but can hinder as well. I see it happen in the Facebook Group pages. Again, sometimes the things posted are simply subjective and your personal viewpoint has a way of getting in the way of having and unbiased opinion.
I choose to frequent the Beacon because I am actually interested in what goes on in the city. I learn something new from other commenters all the time. Many have been around a lot longer than I have been so it is good to put things into perspective. I think it is very easy to see past the bluster and see what is really going on. But I think that when it crosses the line into threats, it needs to be stopped immediately. I think name calling and inflammatory rhetoric automatically discredits the fact or theory you are trying to present.
"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something." Plato
Wednesday, February 5, 2020 Report this
Former User
Cat, I see your point about potentially hindering conversation by moderating comments more aggressively, but I would argue that letting the threats and accusations from certain commenters stay on the website has a much more chilling effect.
I also think that the Beacon simply needs to enforce their own published rules to cut down on some of the behavior that we've been seeing on this website.
(Notably, there is nothing in their terms of use that prohibits the use of screen names, and such a policy would be basically unenforceable, anyway.)
And I understand what you're saying about differences of opinion, but there's a lot of distance between two people offering different perspectives and someone threatening another person.
In the end, I'm waiting to see whether someone at the Beacon is enforcing the policies that they set for the website before I decide whether I'm going to pay for it. Showing that they're willing to moderate the website -- before the paywall goes up -- would raise its value to me.
Thursday, February 6, 2020 Report this