The article I chose, written by Shan Wang for Nieman Lab, focused around paywalls, specifically centered around the Wall Street Journals and their paywalls. A paywall is when an online media outlet charges a fee for access to their news content. The article discusses how paywalls are negative because casual readers are at a disadvantage. They are unable to test out a news source before committing to a payment. The article then describes two types of paywalls: hard and soft. Hard paywalls allow for minimal to no access for those who are not subscribers. Soft paywalls are different because they allow some flexibly, such as a monthly free trial. The article mainly goes on to focus on The Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal was one of
…show more content…
Within the article the conflict of paywalls is presented. It poses the question of their practically and if steps can be implemented to make them digestible to readers. The article leans to the con side on the issue of paywalls. They present them as if they are wholly negative. However, the article does seem to paint The Wall Street Journal and their ideas of paywalls in a more positive and complimentary light. Although it does seem to lean to a certain side, I believe the article presented both sides of the argument because it explained why paywalls are necessary. This helps to alleviate any suspicions of bias. The question that remains unanswered, however; is to what extent will we see paywalls being used in the …show more content…
To me, it leaves me feeling there should not be paywalls present, unless they are soft paywalls, because that seems to be the side of the argument the author is pushing; therefore, I was exposed to more information about the negatives effects of paywalls rather than being offered a counter argument. The reoccurring themes, as listed in the description, shows me how media and news are tailoring their industry to fit consumer wishes. The Wall Street Journal is no offering soft paywall options because the realize the general public is not willing to pay for news. This also bring about the topic of fake news. If consumers are unwilling to buy legitimate news, fake news will be there to fill the gap, just not in the right way. I think companies like The Wall Street Journal see that are now putting forth these news strategies to combat fake news as well as the loss in
Within the article the conflict of paywalls is presented. It poses the question of their practically and if steps can be implemented to make them digestible to readers. The article leans to the con side on the issue of paywalls. They present them as if they are wholly negative. However, the article does seem to paint The Wall Street Journal and their ideas of paywalls in a more positive and complimentary light. Although it does seem to lean to a certain side, I believe the article presented both sides of the argument because it explained why paywalls are necessary. This helps to alleviate any suspicions of bias. The question that remains unanswered, however; is to what extent will we see paywalls being used in the …show more content…
To me, it leaves me feeling there should not be paywalls present, unless they are soft paywalls, because that seems to be the side of the argument the author is pushing; therefore, I was exposed to more information about the negatives effects of paywalls rather than being offered a counter argument. The reoccurring themes, as listed in the description, shows me how media and news are tailoring their industry to fit consumer wishes. The Wall Street Journal is no offering soft paywall options because the realize the general public is not willing to pay for news. This also bring about the topic of fake news. If consumers are unwilling to buy legitimate news, fake news will be there to fill the gap, just not in the right way. I think companies like The Wall Street Journal see that are now putting forth these news strategies to combat fake news as well as the loss in