Slowly but surely....

....newspaper websites are becoming only available if you pay for them. The Times website has been pay only for about six months now, meaning i'm being deprived of my favourite cricket writer, the almighty Athers with his infinite sageness. And now I can't get my dose of celebrity filth/Pakistan cricket news either because the NOTW website is asking me for money as well.

C*nts.

Always the likes of The Sun,etc

So that's Red farked then.

Henry wrote:....newspaper websites are becoming only available if you pay for them. The Times website has been pay only for about six months now, meaning i'm being deprived of my favourite cricket writer, the almighty Athers with his infinite sageness. And now I can't get my dose of celebrity filth/Pakistan cricket news either because the NOTW website is asking me for money as well.

C*nts.

You don't have to be deprived of Athers. How much is it?

"Access from 1 pound" .....I assume that is per day.

I refuse to.

Oh no. We can't read the news of the world! The very little worth reading in that newspaper (sting ops) is reported elsewhere.

And it's only the Murdoch papers that are doing it at the moment. I do miss The Times. Hopefully the rest of the broadsheets don't head the same way.

They must be losing all their advertising revenue gradually since doing this. They've lost about 90% of their hits and saw that as a "success".

I suspect they're largely doing it to put pressure on the Government regarding the fact that the BBC is able to provide so much content for free, I guess Murdoch is hoping that all the other papers go pay per view online, the weaker ones end up shutting down and then the BBC charter is changed to prevent them providing a free online news/sport service. As long as the important information is available somewhere for free I can't see many people paying for specific news sites.