They need to find a business model that isn't based around outright deception to survive. I have zero sympathy for them.
The problem with newspapers is that if they paywall all of their articles, they won't get any viewers because nobody knows what kind of articles they write without subscribing. A lot of them have an 'X free articles per month' thing, but since I'm on three different machines, I've never hit that limit unless it was like one or two a month.
Two solutions:
1. Make certain articles freely available. They're not stupid--they can figure out which ones will draw people in.
2. Do it LWN-style: the current week's edition requires a subscription, after that it's free. If it's well-written, people will pay to not be a week behind.
Re:Dark Patterns by the Boston Globe
by forgetsusername on Monday April 25, 2016 @07:35AM
(#11563571)
>How are good newspapers to survive and turn a profit?
They might not. It doesn't surprise me, nobody wants to read objective news anymore. They'd rather seek out and read things that confirm their biases. It's one of the paradoxes of choice; more information and we actually learn less.
As much as I understand the need for a subscription this practice should be illegal.
And in some countries they actually are. There are laws in some European countries where you always have to disclose the full price and in case of reductions and offers you have to clearly show the original price.
However, while I was watching the documentary 'Spotlight', which was The Globe's 2002 expose on the Roman Catholic church, it occurred to me - How are good newspapers to survive and turn a profit? Readers are unwilling to pay/subscribe and online ad revenue is falling.
It's a genuine problem and I sure hope some of these newspapers survive and are still around a decade from now. The WSJ, NYT, and WaPos will, but what about some of the the others?