zlacker

>>uptown+(OP)
"Reuters.com will remain free for a preview period, but will require users to register after five stories. It is not immediately clear when it will begin charging."

Reuters reporting about Reuters in the third person is amusing. "We asked ourselves when we would begin charging but we didn't know."

>>bombca+u6
Does anyone pay for these kind of sites? I just can’t imagine doing it. I already have streaming subscriptions I just cannot imagine paying for news. I know that is a problem for the internet and journalism in general but what person will buy a Reuters sub? I can maybe see a NY Times sub or WSJ for some people but it has to be the best of the best. And still I personally wouldn’t do it. I don’t need to know news. It’s likely the news will make me feel worse, as opposed to my streaming subscriptions which will make me feel better.

>>JohnJa+Ld
I'm not sure, but I would have thought it would be the opposite — you should not pay to read (or read at all) biased journals such as the NYT, WSJ, or Fox etc., and instead only pay attention to journals with minimal bias like Reuters and AP.

>>yaksha+Pf
You can't equate WSJ/NYT with Reuters or AP.

They serve completely different purposes. The "biases" of them is hardly relevant unless you are routinely taking their opinion sections as fact.