Survey: Readers don't want to pay for news online

[LiberalNation]

no shit, we really don't want to pay for anything truth be told.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100315/..._state_of_news

NEW YORK – Getting people to pay for news online at this point would be "like trying to force butterflies back into their cocoons," a new consumer survey suggests.

That was one of several bleak headlines in the Project for Excellence in Journalism's annual assessment of the state of the news industry, released Sunday.

The project's report contained an extensive look at habits of the estimated six in 10 Americans who say they get at least some news online during a typical day. On average, each person spends three minutes and four seconds per visit to a news site.

About 35 percent of online news consumers said they have a favorite site that they check each day. The others are essentially free agents, the project said. Even among those who have their favorites, only 19 percent said they would be willing to pay for news online — including those who already do. ~snip

[Nukeman]

The way I see it we ALREADY pay for internet service as it is. Now if they are saying that we will have FREE internet than I really don't see a problem with charging for certain sites. However I would expect those sites to not do very well.

It is like cable tv. You pay upfront for the service and can access everything you pay for now the more you pay the more you access......

[Kathianne]

Let's see, in the last five years or so I've cancelled TIME, Newsweak, Chicago Tribune. I cancelled WSJ cause most of it was online, free.

I am considering subscribing to WSJ, it's worth reading. NYT? LOL! Any other of those above? No way.

What doesn't sell in print, will not sell online, unless they were to really fix the journalism. I don't see that happening.