On October 22, the Globe and Mail introduced a paywall on their website. Obviously, my first question about this new addition is: what am I going to make fun of now? But my second is: will this compel them to publish anything worth reading? Well, no. No it won’t, because you can’t solve a problem you don’t know you have, and they certainly don’t realize that they are publishing the asinine rantings of the undiagnosed.
Will people pay? Or will the Globe fold like Zizek’s shirt, putting Margaret Wente and Jeffery Simpson on the street where they can harass just anyone, and not just Globe readers? Here’s a recent photo of Simpson bothering people in a bookstore.
So, it works like this: you get 10 articles a month for free, which will amount to the 3 articles worth reading and 7 attempts to see if they managed to produce a fourth article worth reading, followed by feeling of relief that you didn’t give them any money. But here’s how they’re going to try and get you: your first month is 99 cents, leaping to a deranged $19.99 every month after that. Do they know what twenty bucks means in Canada?
Also, clicking on links in this column may fuck your monthly count right up, so be careful here, guys. If you’re going to be in the mood for some Lawrence Martin drivel while you wonder what his hair is all about, exactly, you aren’t going to want to max out on whining about what real newspapers in actual countries with more than 3 cities that people have heard of internationally are doing.
I think the Globe’s mistake here is assuming that because their readers have money, they will feel inclined to give it to them. I’m trying to think of an example of something else where people didn’t really want it, and sort of didn’t care about it at all, but kept taking it because they were getting it for free, then lost all interest in it because they suddenly had to pay for it. If we had an example, we’d know what’s going to happen to the Globe. Is this what killed the dinosaurs? Was there a dinosaur paywall, and then God lost interest and made people? Are human beings to evolutionary biology as the Huffington Post is to news outlets? Suddenly, I am unconvinced humans deserve to live.
The Globe, of course, keep saying that they think they’re doing the right thing. If they actually thought that and didn’t need to convince anybody, why do they keep insisting that it’s the right move? Has it occurred to the papers that ease of access to news outlets has rendered them obsolete – not in terms of being a paper object, but as an entity at all? Oh, no. Never. In fact, the Globe have a chart that Postmedia gave them.
I love this reaction from Toronto talk radio station 680 News. I guess when you talk all the time, you don’t pay attention to what words look like:
The Globe and Mail has become the lastest newspaper to launch a paywall — meaning you have to pay for content.
Do they mean lastest as in final, or the most last? That’s pretty last.
The Globe, in their ongoing effort to convince people that this isn’t a fatal mistake, report that The Star is also going to introduce a paywall. Star publisher John Cruickshank says:
“And I think we’ve now seen from the New York Times that there is a possible and respectable business case to be made if you have the right content.”
Following that logic, there is no possible or respectable business case to be made by any Canadian paper. Which means nothing can stop the soul-deadening brain waste that is The Huffington Post from taking over the news. You’ve fucked us, Canadian newspapers, and I spit on your grave.