Instead of complaining about that WA Post paywall, maybe help them stay in business, IF you can,

[pnwmom]

and pay for the salaries of all those reporters, by spending less than a dollar a week for a year's subscription.

Right now it's $40 for a year for the digital subscription.

https://subscribe.washingtonpost.com/acquisition/?fbclid=IwAR3qhkO6UTe28s4GTKR-u4ICFXtnsezNviy_uHQ8O8RFZRyB79eqkQ-lgp4&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIwYHduePX5wIVBLvsCh3mHwUVEAAYASAAEgJMLvD_BwE&promo=gse_di_pd1420&utm_campaign=direct%20response&utm_keyword=subscription&utm_medium=search&utm_source=google&view=1#/offers/promo/gse_di_pd1420/view/1?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIwYHduePX5wIVBLvsCh3mHwUVEAAYASAAEgJMLvD_BwE&utm_campaign=direct%20response&utm_keyword=subscription&utm_medium=search&utm_source=google

[Hekate]

1. Good point. Thanks for the reminder.

[msongs]

2. one doubts jeff bezos is going broke without a pay wall nt

[USALiberal]

7. Shit ain't free! Nt

[pnwmom]

13. The WA Examiner is free without a paywall. It's propaganda, so it's free. n/t

[leftstreet]

3. Do search engines charge newspapers?

(I really don't know)

It's irritating though when search engines bring you both paywall and nonpaywall links

[steve2470]

34. No, search engines do not charge but....

you CAN buy ads on Google and get placement on the front page. They tried a horrible tactic of making ads look like legit search results and got blowback for that.

[Blues Heron]

4. They should sell it like a paper

I'd pay 25 cents/day to read it.

[pnwmom]

5. They still sell a paper subscription, but it costs more. n/t

[Blues Heron]

9. I know, I think they should experiment with paygo for the web version

[USALiberal]

8. 25 cents a day is $90 a year! Nt

[Blues Heron]

10. right, this would be for people who read more than the free # of articles

but don't read it every day or every week.
that way your not locked in.

[gembaby1]

6. You're right

We need them to stay in business desperately. They are one of the few serious, investigative newspapers out there.

[BigmanPigman]

11. I started to subscribe to the Wa Po and NYT after Nov 2016.

Even though I am on a very limited income I put what little money I have where my mouth is (poverty level in urban CA). I am not a big fan of the NYT due to their "Hilary and her emails" BS though. I think they contributed to her loss.

[Demovictory9]

12. WA post owned by Bezos, right? he could support the paper with the change in his pocket

I cycle between supporting WA post, nYtimes, LAtimes

[pnwmom]

16. He could also sell it to the Koch brothers or some other billionaires. Would we be better off?

[FoxNewsSucks]

14. Every time I think about subscribing to either

the NY Times or WA Post, I remember how Judith Miller helped sell the Iraq War. How the Times still leans right when it matters. How Amazon puts 11 BILLION per year tax-free into Bezos' pocket.

I pay the $40 annual subscription to the Times food emails and access to the cooking section. I have Amazon Prime. I'd subscribe to the Post if it supported journalists instead of just putting more of my after-tax money into into Bezos tax-free pocket.

[pnwmom]

15. You say Fox News Sucks and yet you resent the fact that one of the best papers in the country

charges pennies a day for a subscription.

Maybe you think we'd be better off if Bezos sold it to the Koch brothers. . . .

[FoxNewsSucks]

18. Nope,

I think we'd be better off if we subscribed, and he paid his share of taxes. Like we do. And his employees do.

Do you disagree?

[pnwmom]

19. I think of course he should pay taxes, but that's not a reason not to subscribe

for those who can afford it.

[FoxNewsSucks]

20. I think that

$120 per year (a recent 20% increase) for Prime could include at least limited access to the Post. I do think the Post probably does a better job than the NY Times.

I'd subscribe to the full Post site if they paid taxes like we do. Right now, I've seen it as just extra cash.

Given the McClatchy bankruptcy, I might consider subscribing until the day the Post follows suit by "shedding print costs".

But that doesn't address my point that they pay no tax and their coverage avoids talking about why that is.

[pnwmom]

21. The Post DOES pay taxes. It's not part of Amazon, just because Bezos owns them both.

The reason his taxes have been so low (around 8%) for Amazon is because he's been investing in expansion, and getting tax breaks for that.

The same thing doesn't apply to the WA Post.

[FoxNewsSucks]

22. True, and

I also have a problem with the conditions of Amazon employment. They went to court to force employees to wait in line at security without pay. They would have exploited NYC for tax breaks had AOC not stood up to them.

But I will think about a Post subscription, partly because of what you said, and because it is one of the few remaining journalistic outlets. So thanks for making your point in a reasonable way.

[pnwmom]

23. Thank you for being willing to consider my points. Watching McClatchy drowning

has scared me. I have ALSO been getting a subscription for the Miami Herald because they're been doing such good work. (And some others. )

Unfortunately, doing good reporting isn't enough to keep a newspaper in business these days, not with all the free propaganda out there.

[FoxNewsSucks]

25. Yeah, McClatchy was one of the last

newspaper owners to still do good reporting.

I don't think it's a coincidence that their brands have been consistently attacked as "librul media".

[SunSeeker]

17. I already pay for a WaPo subscription.

[pnwmom]

24. Good for you! n/t

[phylny]

35. Me too. It's worth it to me. n/t

[Grasswire2]

26. I pay $5 month for WaPo.

That's a bargain.

And NYT has a free option for signing up.

[dawg day]

27. I subscribed...

and I have to say, I like just clicking and reading rather than trying to find it otherwise.

But boy, do I have a lot of subscriptions! Then again, I used to subscribe (print) to the local paper, and about 15 magazines. So I'm probably saving money. I still subscribe to a few print magazines like Discover Britain where I enjoy the pictures so much.

[Boulevardier]

28. I agree. I pay for both the Post and the New York Times.

And the LA Times, now that I think about it.

It's worth a few bucks.

[marybourg]

29. Thank you for this post (no pun intended),

It makes a very important point.

[Journeyman]

30. On my WaPo subscription, I can add a 2nd person for free, so my brother reads it for the same price...

So really, that 25¢ a day, $90 a year can actually be only 12.5¢ a day, $45 a year if you split the cost. Quite a bargain for supporting one of the media outlets that consistently reports some truth about Trump.

[roscoeroscoe]

31. I love the Post

Got my online subscription a while back.

[sinkingfeeling]

32. I'm paying them $10 a month for digital subscription.

[steve2470]

33. Good post, I have a digital subscription

Let's think about a theoretical point: Let's say that only 20% of readers pay, which would result in grossly inadequate revenues.

Does anyone seriously think Jeff Bezos would subsidize it ? I don't think so. He would either shut it down or sell it off to some hedge fund, which would cut their resources to the bone and go back to charging the same or possibly more.

If the Post was garbage like FauxNews, yes, why pay for garbage ? That's not the case. The people who work there need to be paid fairly.

I'm also thinking of paying for the New York Times, which also has good reporting.

[Maeve]

36. I susbscribe to both WaPost and NYTimes online

I used to subscribe to my local paper, but they have customer relations/billings problems that will keep me off their list permanently (I read my mother's Sunday paper instead!)

[Vivienne235729]

37. I have been subscribing to WAPO for 2 or 3 yrs now. I chose them over NYT

NYT pissed me off on a few ridiculous articles that pandered to the far right. No. Just no.