Comments on: More Web-Time, Less Newspaper Reading http://www.markevanstech.com/2005/11/06/more-web-time-less-newspaper-reading/ Insight and Analysis from North of the Border Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:53:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: MarkFan http://www.markevanstech.com/2005/11/06/more-web-time-less-newspaper-reading/#comment-704 MarkFan Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:17:57 +0000 http://markevanstech.com/?p=1060#comment-704 Reading a newspaper is essentially a passive act, and we should recognize that the Web sites they publish are in most cases a poor excuse at brand extension that could possibly offer some interactive services to readers, but do not serve the same function. Can't wait to see you in your Crocs, Mark. All should bow down and kiss Mark's feet! MarkFan Reading a newspaper is essentially a passive act, and we should recognize that the Web sites they publish are in most cases a poor excuse at brand extension that could possibly offer some interactive services to readers, but do not serve the same function.
Can't wait to see you in your Crocs, Mark. All should bow down and kiss Mark's feet!
MarkFan

]]> By: Aaron http://www.markevanstech.com/2005/11/06/more-web-time-less-newspaper-reading/#comment-703 Aaron Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:12:24 +0000 http://markevanstech.com/?p=1060#comment-703 While I realize that <a href="http://www.ledevoir.com/" rel="nofollow">Le Devoir</a> doesn't make much of a profit, I like what they've done with their online presence. It's the only online newspaper I'm paying for, and Paul Wells said the same thing earlier this week on his blog. Le Devoir has good free content, great writing, RSS that's updated, PDF, access to recent editions, and even twenty-five articles per month from very old archives. I'm sorry but I tried the online Post and Gazette, and they don't offer nearly the amount of features for four dollars less per month. There's a trick to making some content free, which CanWest didn't -- perhaps, still - get as they put up a wall to the "letters to the editor. Charge for two-thirds of the journalists, but don't charge for the regular people who write a brief opinion for free. The Globe & Mail, La Presse, etc., use a terrible software called NewsStand. Le Devoir trusts their clients with their PDFs without a lock on it. Other companies wouldn't be able to that, and if people abused LeDevoir, then I'd still pay to have access to everything else they offer. However, it's sure nice to scroll through a PDF of the tv guide, and to have newspapers on my desktop should the Internet connection go down. The only times I cancel Le Devoir are when I've been subscribed to too many things, but I now only pay for the top quality out there. WSJ.com is great quality as well, I must admit their website, email newsletters, arts and tech coverage, are top notch; probably still the number-one-non-xxx subscription online. (I may one day get WSJ.com back, especially if their editorial page ends up closer to the centre.) I'll one day donate to Le Devoir as sixteen dollars a month, and no tips needed, help me as I strive to get close to bilingual, plus I learn what people around me think. An English national newspaper approaching the quality and service of Le Devoir would be welcome, and dare I say it, save the preseent country. A little less for the CBC could be put into helping the Globe and Post, or perhaps begin a new one. I'm in the minority but thought I'd share. While I realize that Le Devoir doesn't make much of a profit, I like what they've done with their online presence. It's the only online newspaper I'm paying for, and Paul Wells said the same thing earlier this week on his blog.
Le Devoir has good free content, great writing, RSS that's updated, PDF, access to recent editions, and even twenty-five articles per month from very old archives.
I'm sorry but I tried the online Post and Gazette, and they don't offer nearly the amount of features for four dollars less per month. There's a trick to making some content free, which CanWest didn't — perhaps, still - get as they put up a wall to the “letters to the editor. Charge for two-thirds of the journalists, but don't charge for the regular people who write a brief opinion for free.
The Globe & Mail, La Presse, etc., use a terrible software called NewsStand. Le Devoir trusts their clients with their PDFs without a lock on it. Other companies wouldn't be able to that, and if people abused LeDevoir, then I'd still pay to have access to everything else they offer. However, it's sure nice to scroll through a PDF of the tv guide, and to have newspapers on my desktop should the Internet connection go down.
The only times I cancel Le Devoir are when I've been subscribed to too many things, but I now only pay for the top quality out there. WSJ.com is great quality as well, I must admit their website, email newsletters, arts and tech coverage, are top notch; probably still the number-one-non-xxx subscription online. (I may one day get WSJ.com back, especially if their editorial page ends up closer to the centre.)
I'll one day donate to Le Devoir as sixteen dollars a month, and no tips needed, help me as I strive to get close to bilingual, plus I learn what people around me think.
An English national newspaper approaching the quality and service of Le Devoir would be welcome, and dare I say it, save the preseent country. A little less for the CBC could be put into helping the Globe and Post, or perhaps begin a new one.
I'm in the minority but thought I'd share.

]]>