Everyone has a story. What's yours?
 Linda Thomas
twitter: @TheNewsChick
About Linda
Linda is the morning news anchor and features reporter for KIRO Radio. This is her local news blog, with an emphasis on social media, technology, Northwest companies, education, parenting, and anything else that grabs her attention.

If you have a news tip or story idea, I'd love to hear from you...

To leave a voice message for Linda about any of her stories call toll free 1-855-251-2363

Follow Me on Pinterest


seattletimes_lt640.jpg
The Seattle Times announced "digital subscriptions" are needed to support quality journalism. In mid-March, the news organization will put up a paywall. Subscribers will continue to have unrestricted access online. Other users will have to pay. (Linda Thomas photo)

The state of Seattle journalism, as the Times puts up a paywall

February 24, 2013 @ 4:13 pm (Updated: 12:52 pm - 2/25/13 )

Most people don't want to pay for news online. Many people don't trust the media. And, by the way, everybody is a journalist.

Saying, "You get what you pay for," The Seattle Times is challenging the first assumption, while a local news council is asking journalists to step up their games to win back public trust.

In a column in The Seattle Times Sunday, the news organization announced it will begin charging those who don't subscribe to their newspaper but want to read their stories online.

"Of course, we realize that nobody likes having to pay for something they've been receiving for free," writes David Boardman, executive editor for the Times. "But we believe that if you stop for just a moment to contemplate how important The Times is to the vitality and civility of the Puget Sound region, you might even feel good about your contribution to sustaining the content you value."

Boardman referred to the paywall as "digital subscriptions."

Those subscriptions to the SeattleTimes.com will be available at no extra charge to existing and new print subscribers and will give users access to the newspaper's smartphone and tablet apps.

Readers who don't subscribe will still be able to access the online content on a limited basis, after a few stories you'll have to pay.

How much? A Times spokeswoman later stated there will be an introductory offer of 99-cents per week for four weeks. The regular pricing will be $3.99 per week.

There are hundreds of reader reactions posted in the comments section of Boardman's column.

"I'm starved for objective and untargeted news and I'm not sure where to go. I have had that feeling for a very long time. I'm certain that registering my name, address and credit card for a subscription is not going to help me in my quest," writes one reader from Federal Way.

"You would have to pry money from my cold dead hands to pay for a Seattle Times subscription," says another reader.

"Pay for this crap? Good luck."

The Times is not alone with its skeptical news consumers.

The most recent Edelman Trust Barometer puts the media as a whole third from the bottom among institutions. That's down there with banks and financial institutions.

"That's consistent with Gallup, which found 60 percent of Americans have little or no trust in the media's ability to report the news fully, accurately and fairly," says John Hamer. "That's disturbing."

Hamer, who was a Seattle Times editorial writer many years ago, founded the Washington News Council in 1998.

"A lot of citizens in this region really care about high quality, accurate, ethical, thorough, professional journalism," says Hamer. "I spent 30 plus years as a journalist and thought maybe the profession was getting a little off track."

His media watchdog organization is the only one that still exists in the United States. Has it made a difference?

"Maybe a little," he admits. "You pick your battle and try to move the needle a little bit."

Hamer's latest effort is called the Tao of Journalism. He's encouraging student and professional journalists to abide by its simple concepts of Transparency, Accountability, and Openness.

He believes journalism has been damaged by the "pretense of objectivity."

"So many journalists for so long have pretended that they have no views - the view from nowhere. 'Oh no, no, no, no, no I don't have any opinions on anything. I'm totally neutral. I can be totally objective,' well baloney," he says.

Journalists should still be even handed, but the line between news an opinion has blurred so much that he believes news people need to be more upfront about their opinions so the reader, viewer and listener can better judge the information they're receiving.

On the issue of accountability, Hamer says it's quite simple. Journalists need to admit when they've made factual errors and apologize for them.

"Show a little humility. The words humility and journalist seldom appear in the same sentence, let's face it this is an ego centric profession," Hamer says.

Openness involves giving other points of view opportunity to express their perspectives. It also includes engaging in open, public dialogue through comments. I've always been a supporter of your ability to comment anonymously on this blog, and I do consider your feedback.

Hamer believes these standards should apply to anyone - with or without a journalism degree - who presents news in any form.

"We're all journalists now," he says. "You can start your own website or blog. Facebook could be considered journalism when you're posting stuff to your friends. People trust what they get from their friends maybe more than the traditional media sources."

"That's the big question," he asks. "Who do you trust?"

By LINDA THOMAS

You might also be interested in:

Ross and Burbank: In defense of the Seattle Times charging for online access

More from Linda Thomas

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (42)


  • Add A Comment

  • Hakuzen wrote...
    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    February 25, 2013 8:20 am
    Are you serious? You are? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... *Ahem*.. Sorry.. Good comedy is hard to find these days, thanks for the laughs, Seattle Times!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HLC wrote...
    The media is just an extension of the democrat party.
    February 25, 2013 8:22 am
    I guess that makes Davey Ross or you qualified to give your leftist view on the news. It just doesn't make either one of you journalists.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • flipper wrote...
    Perfect
    February 25, 2013 8:26 am
    I don't read the drivel from the Seattle Times as it is...will they pay me to continue not reading their stuff?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    People don't trust the news ever since....
    February 25, 2013 8:33 am
    The News openly decided to be partisan. Fox news actually calls itself fair and balanced, which is absolutely laughable, they're completely Republican, and MSNBC is completely Democrat... That destroys the Public's trust in the news because the news is supposed to be facts... well Fox and MSNBC have found their own ways to describe "facts". It's so bad you know you can't even listen to what they say, and you have people who are ardent followers of either of these news services and they are completely off base. CNN used to provide a central point of balance but they are becoming ever more partisan... I like the news, I used to respect it, but the problem is, I want facts, not opinion, and that's what the News has become just one big opinion article... Fox hates the President and hates the Dems... MSNBC Hates the republicans and it's caused their "followers" to do the same... It's really sad Media has been used this way in our country...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Cbrew
    February 25, 2013 11:21 am
    Good point, but just curious, where do YOU go to get YOUR facts? I try really hard to listen to both sides and make my own decision. I try to read both sides and make my own decision. However, If you watch Fox they have people like Hannity and Greta Van Sustran that are Republican commentators, but if you watch say: Megan Kelly or Shepard Smith or The Five, I'd say they just deliver the facts and let "strategists" debate? However, if you watch MSNBC and CNN, I have yet to see anyone offer anything remotely close to a fair debate? Even Morning Joe is a brutal Left wing beat down of anything to the Right? Just curious as to where you find YOUR facts?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    Maplefish
    February 25, 2013 12:09 pm
    I get my "facts" from multiple sources / News outlets, Generally it's on the internet anymore, I read articles here on MYNW, read them on CNN, watch on local TV stations like Komo 4 King 5 and Q13... The problem is, I have to decipher for myself what the facts are and what's opinion, It's rediculous how partisan everything is, to be honest, PBS and BBC are the networks with the least spin, i do watch those newscasts every now and again, You'd be amazed at how wildly different a story can be from news group to news group... Truthfully i despise the talking heads, I hate people like Hannity and Limbaugh, Maddow and Matthews... They insult our intelligence and lie like nobody's business on EVERY broadcast and people just EAT their stuff up and believe every word.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    Be interesting to see how this plays out
    February 25, 2013 9:03 am
    The New York Times and Wall Street Journal do it. It will be a balancing act.

    They'll get a lot less hits therefor a lot less revenue from advertisers.

    The New York Times uses more of a throttle, a certain number of articles if you are not a subscriber. The WSJ blocks most (but not all) content to non subscribers.

    Both of which allows them to get hits from non subscribers. Neither uses the all of nothing approach, which it sounds the Seattle Times is going to use. Also, at $12 a month, that seems way high. Be cheaper to subscribe to Sunday only.

    Reading the comments here are hilarious.

    The new class of the persecuted.

    White

    Republicans

    Poor you

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Ron_Spins wrote...
    It's all Propaganda...ALL OF IT ! !
    February 25, 2013 9:40 am
    I just go to GOOGLE News to get around any pay wall.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Not Persecuted - Moron Lawn
    February 25, 2013 11:29 am
    What does being WHITE have to do with anything you dickkhead! Just sick of the Knee-Jerk Liberal, Hate the Rich, Global Warming zealots that twist the truth so blatantly and pass it off as in-depth journalism that it becomes flat out laughable. Much like everything you post on this site...eF YOU Racist!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    What does white have to do with it?
    February 25, 2013 5:50 pm
    The shrinking demographic in our country.

    Whether toothless hillbillies or the Koch brothers.

    Our group ain't growing.

    Did have a good run though.

    You'll just have to get used to it.

    You people are just too funny.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Say Bye- Bye
    February 25, 2013 9:55 am
    This will be the final nail in the coffin for The Seattle Times. There are just too many other credible, non-biased news sources online available for FREE! You fools turned into a Hipster, Left Wing Propaganda Rag and became too pathetic to take seriously. Sorry for the people losing your jobs, but this might not have come so fast if you hadn't ignored a good percentage of intelligent, free thinking people who aren't mindless, liberal, sheep!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Vortex of the Public Eye wrote...
    After all these years...
    February 25, 2013 10:02 am
    …I thought newspapers were still around for the sole purpose of endorsing political candidates for office during election season. Seriously.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • DesertRez wrote...
    Correct me if I am wrong
    February 25, 2013 10:06 am
    But isn't most of a print newspapers' revenue from advertisement? Online ads don't make enough revenue?

    One downside to a paywall is the reduced net traffice from the Drudge report links. Drudge actually moves more traffic than Facebook and other social media.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Contemporary publishing has changed
    February 25, 2013 10:13 am
    Print news will be gone within a decade. Few people under 50 have a land line telephone or subscribe to a newspaper. The Times will go the way of the Yellow Pages. The times, (not just The Times), are changing.

    There's a downside, as well as an upside. The new dynamic has a very low barrier to entry. Anybody can get some some of on-line audience (however tiny) and communicate ideas, opinions, or share accounts of recent events. That's a good thing, the "big money" no longer has a monopoly on the distribution of information.

    Alas, the downside is that when big money loses its monopoly on the distribution of information, there is less "big money" involved in doing so. Readers expect nearly everything on line to be available free of charge, and advertisers are confused about which of the 2-billion on-line advertising opportunities are worth their time and budgets.

    The news business will become more like the record business. Used to be that the top 30 records in the United States would sell a million copies a year. Anymore, it's closer to the top million records selling 30 copies each. :-)

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    there still isn't anything to compare with a print newspaper
    February 25, 2013 5:56 pm
    for the morning poop.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Zoeller wrote...
    Right before our eyes the Seattle Times spirals deeper and deeper into -
    February 25, 2013 10:35 am
    Oblivion.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }