News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

And they did.

John Barber, amongst other columnists, is free at last.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinions/columnists/John+Barber.html
Sorry ST, but it's back. And the Toronto Star will be next in 2013.

My inner optimist hopes that with paywall financials these papers will introduce more original content instead of republishing AP, Reuters and other papers' articles.

We'll see how it goes. If you read the comments on the Star and Globe websites you'd think both papers have made fatal errors. However, I believe they need to find revenue somewhere, and you can't give away for content forever.
 
It was inevitable, I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner. I wouldn't expect any more original content beyond what they offer already.
 
It was inevitable, I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner. I wouldn't expect any more original content beyond what they offer already.
Then they'll lose a lot of readers. In the Globe's case, at $20 a month people will be expecting limited or no advertising and quality, original content. What I always find frustrating is that the Nationalpost, Globe and Star websites cover nearly the exact same content, especially the headlines.
 
I'll end up paying for full access to one of the local papers, but not multiple papers. I currently enjoy reading selections from multiple online papers, and getting a range of opinions, biases and focus, from the occasional, regrettable SAL looney rant, to the special investigations that the Star has done quite well. I'll still have a bit of that, given work-arounds, the 10 free article views and through Facebook/Twitter posts, but can't justify paying for multiple Toronto digital news sites. I'll probably just pay for the Star.
 
My wife and I are overseas at the moment and a bit limited in terms of what Canadian media we have access to.

When it comes to the G&M, for us it's pretty much the only option. Generally it has a good mix of Toronto and National news (even if we do always default to the Toronto section first). Also, it's always OK to be on the G&M website for work as it has good business coverage.

The Toronto Sun and Toronto Star are quite a bit too populist/simple for us, whereas the G&M seems to mix high- and low-brow. I've found the political coverage in the Star to be jarring for the past 2 years.

I've tried to warm to the National Post, but just can't, and Conrad Black's behaviour means I'll continue to leave it on the electronic shelf. Though I adore the CBC, its news website does not cut the mustard. Toronto Life is neat for some longer articles, but there's more editorial and lifestyle content than actual news.

So, given the G&M is the "newspaper of record", I can't see any way forward that does not involve giving them $20 a month. I guess it'll fund their new sweet HQ at Front & Spadina!
 
My wife and I are overseas at the moment and a bit limited in terms of what Canadian media we have access to.

When it comes to the G&M, for us it's pretty much the only option. Generally it has a good mix of Toronto and National news (even if we do always default to the Toronto section first). Also, it's always OK to be on the G&M website for work as it has good business coverage.

The Toronto Sun and Toronto Star are quite a bit too populist/simple for us, whereas the G&M seems to mix high- and low-brow. I've found the political coverage in the Star to be jarring for the past 2 years.

I've tried to warm to the National Post, but just can't, and Conrad Black's behaviour means I'll continue to leave it on the electronic shelf. Though I adore the CBC, its news website does not cut the mustard. Toronto Life is neat for some longer articles, but there's more editorial and lifestyle content than actual news.

So, given the G&M is the "newspaper of record", I can't see any way forward that does not involve giving them $20 a month. I guess it'll fund their new sweet HQ at Front & Spadina!

Given the Globe and Mail's nutty editorial board, I just can't justify supporting them. The board that warmly endorsed Harper in the last election, but weeks before blasted his undemocratic abuse of power, the one who just this week played down Rob and Doug Ford's radio antics, even if it undermines and insults one of their senior staff. At least the comments (if open for editorials) rightly, and sometimes entertainingly, destroy the Globe's biased commentary. Conrad Black has no association left with the Post, and often I'd rather read that.
 
It's going to be an even playing field by this time next year; a Post article stated that all Postmedia sites would be behind a paywall in the next few months.
 
If any newspaper puts up a "paywall" to their online newspaper, they had better improve the access speeds and login processes. Currently, The Star's... website... can... be... very... slow... and... I... have... been... unsuccessful.. trying... to... login... for... the... past... four... days....
 
I stopped getting The Toronto Star delivered about 3 years ago. Some of the "news" stories they published belonged in a gossip magazine. If I wanted to read that kind of junk i would read The Sun.

Now a days i get local the news on the old fashion radio in the mornings, and if i miss it, i just check just check CBC/ CP24. For Canadian/world news i get online from CBC,Yahoo,Reuters,CNN. Everyday I skim the headlines in the Star and the Globe. Just about every story published online is available elsewhere.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd be willing to subscribe to The Star if they publish a real digital paper. Be innovative and offer an interactive tablet paper formatted for reading on an iPad and other eReaders. Since we're paying for it, get rid of the flashing low tier advertising and focus on high quality ads from those willing to pay for it and use an actual ad agency.

I gladly pay for GQ on my iPad and I love it. It's different. It doesn't look or feel like a website. It feels like the high quality publication that it is but gives me something different that I can't get on the print version of their website.

Daily newspapers need to offer a paywall free website. Short breaking news stories should remain on the site and more rich in depth reporting left to the paper and digital subcription copies.

The real upside to this is that it will break up the sorry state of commentary on these sites. I hate the negativity in The Star commentary but I can't help but read it when I decide to write comments myself.
 
Last edited:
It's going to be an even playing field by this time next year; a Post article stated that all Postmedia sites would be behind a paywall in the next few months.
Yep. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/four-postmedia-papers-launch-paywalls/article4491177/

I get the feeling that all the print newspaper owners got together on the golf course or country club and decided to put up paywalls. Otherwise it's just a coincidence that all three major papers have paywall announcements within a week or so of each other.

Regardless, I will likely support one paywall. You can't keep expecting to get professional journalism for free. Sure, you can see blogs for free, but if you want paid journalism, someones' got to pay.
 
Pro-tip: I have found that whenever I hit the Globalist & Mail pay-wall all I need to do is go into my browser options and clear cookies and presto! I can get right back in. Try it! No need to sign up for a $20 / month subscription.

I suppose it could be annoying having to clear cookies after reading 10 articles but I don't spend that much time on the G&M site. Most of their articles are closed to commenting "due to legal reasons" anyway and I am mainly interested in making and reading comments. I would never pay to read the "content" on that site. Most of what is written is just Globalist propaganda.

I think that most pay-walls are easily defeated (New York Times pay-wall is easy to defeat) and I believe that they are created that way on purpose. As much as these media companies would like you to fork-out big-bucks for a subscription they cannot afford to lose "eyeballs" page-hits or their online Ad revenue - which is growing by double-digits each year - will evaporate.

I don't know why Canadian media companies think that they can make money from pay-walls. In its 3rd Qtr results the NY Times reported a 9% drop in Ad revenue and an 85% drop in profits. Their first experiment with pay-walls in the late 90's failed and so to it looks like this latest experiment is a failure.
 
Pro-tip: ...I am mainly interested in making and reading comments. I would never pay to read the "content" on that site. Most of what is written is just Globalist propaganda.

1) I have never known anyone who has gotten value from reading the G&M comment section (or any other for that matter). CYou're the first - congrats.
2) What is Globalist propoganda? Is the G&M too left wing? Too right wing? Too populist? To elite?

I had a chat with a Canadian pal at the weekend. Apparently, he feels the G&M has gone downhill over the last 18 months or so. Had a hard time coming to grips with it, until I read this article (scroll down to the last few sentences...)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life...n-baking-timing-is-everything/article4915875/

They re-submitted their original offer of $949,000, exchanged signed documents, and the house was theirs... A week later, they attended a prescheduled open house...when one of the open house visitors approached her. He asked if Ms. White was the new owner. “Yup,” she responded. He then offered her $1.5-million for the house.

“Not a chance,” she said.
 

Back
Top