# Please, quit using articles behind paywalls as your sources (mild) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 19, 2019, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-quit-using-articles-behind-paywalls-as-your-sources-mild/840481 "2019-09-19T05:35:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-quit-using-articles-behind-paywalls-as-your-sources-mild/840481/41 "2019-09-19T20:07:10Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > The quality broadsheets certainly fuck up sometimes. No news organization is completely faultless or beyond reproach, and I’ve seen a number of problematic stories over the years in theNYT and the WaPo and the LAT. > > The difference between them and the trash press like Breitbart is that the big newspapers have systems in place to prevent this from happening, and on the occasions when those systems fail, they are also much more willing to make corrections. When was the last time you say Breitbart of Fox News or the Moonie Times correct a lie or take back a trashy piece of sensationalist reporting? > > Your own link shows that the Times corrected the story in question. Should the story have been reported accurately and fully the first time? Absolutely. But this qualifies as a bad and unusual stuff-up for the New York Times; for Fox News or Breitbart, it would be just another Tuesday morning. Right, entities like the New York Times and the Washington Post at least aspire to be factual and routinely correct errors. Entities like Fox News and Breitbart are propaganda operations. ---
**Author:** ![Charlie\_Tan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/charlie_tan/32/12582_2.png) [@Charlie\_Tan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charlie_Tan)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-quit-using-articles-behind-paywalls-as-your-sources-mild/840481/42 "2019-09-19T23:13:17Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > I disagree. There’s nothing douchey about the idea that truthful information or valuable content is worth an exchange of value. People should pay for news, especially the news from high-quality news operations. Bullshit. And I say this as a person who worked in broadcasting/journalism for close to 25 years before getting out about 15 years ago. TL;DR to follow [spoiler]It’s not up to you to decide how people spend their money, and even if NYT and WaPo does better reporting than others mentioned here, they are still a business first and foremost. They are (desperately) trying to monetize their product by doing it the same way they did with the printed edition, back in the day when owning a broadsheet was really the equivalent of having a license to print money. The old standard model for the printed and subscribed news biz was roughly: subscription paid for the delivery, ads paid for the content and classified was profit. And remember tat the Sunday newspaper you so fondly remember had very little actual news you got a whole package. Life style, culture, travel, sports [albeit a form of news], tv listings, ads. Of say 48 pages, maybe four or fave were what we generally regard as ‘news’ and those pages had ads as well. You can still get the paper delivered, but the delivery is getting more and more expensive, as fewer people on that paper route subscribe, but the delivery guy still has to make that whole route. My guess is that traditional subscription operates as a net loss. The classified went online in different forms [craigs list and ebay in the US], but they still sell ads, both online and in the printed edition. The big papers are hurting, the small have been going out of business at an alarming rate. The music industry, as well as movie and television, have adapted. I’d be happy to pay a monthly fee to a spotify for news, but the way te newspaper industry is working is like asking me to pay $x.xx a month for the artist released by SONY music and $Y.YY for artists released by Universal Music Group. It’s actually up to the newspapers to find a way to monetize their product and make me a happy costumer. Right now, they aren’t doing that. And you, smugly, trying to shame me to pay for their inferior service is, as stated above, bullshit. [/spoiler] /TL;DR Now what the papers do is one thing. What you as a poster do, here on this message board, is another. One of the first lessons in communication is that all communication should make it as easy as possible for the recipient to receive what you are saying. You can do that by providing links to sites that don’t have a pay wall, or to a sites that do have them. But blaming the recipient for your inability or unwillingness to provide links accessible of everyone is your own loss, because you’re not communicating for my convenience. So why should I bother, then? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-quit-using-articles-behind-paywalls-as-your-sources-mild/840481/43 "2019-09-19T23:39:53Z")
Not buying it. It’s worth a small amount of some posters’ slight inconvenience to use the best news sources. Especially when that inconvenience is nothing more than registration or limited free use. It even costs you less than going all the way to the library to read a free newspaper. So I’m not going to even try to avoid them. You aren’t owed free of all encumbrances, any more than you would have been in the pre-internet world. You’ll have to be satisfied with brief quotations or paraphrasing. The refusal of a handful of stubborn people who are determined to avoid any effort that supports professional writing is no loss to me. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-quit-using-articles-behind-paywalls-as-your-sources-mild/840481/44 "2019-09-20T00:17:08Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Not buying it. It’s worth a small amount of some posters’ slight inconvenience to use the best news sources. Especially when that inconvenience is nothing more than registration or limited free use. It even costs you less than going all the way to the library to read a free newspaper. So I’m not going to even try to avoid them. You aren’t owed free of all encumbrances, any more than you would have been in the pre-internet world. You’ll have to be satisfied with brief quotations or paraphrasing. The refusal of a handful of stubborn people who are determined to avoid any effort that supports professional writing is no loss to me. It has nothing to do to being “stubborn”, “determined to avoid any effort” or “inconvenience”, or feel that I’m “owe” anything. I, and I’m sure most people, cannot simply subscribe to every single publication out there. (And I’m sure there are people here who MIGHT not be able to afford to do so, and some who are minors and don’t have the means to do so?) I have more than one browser to look at articles that won’t allow you to do so with an adblocker. At any rate, I think it’s simply a courtesy to find an alternative. That’s all. Saying, “well, you should be willing to pay, it’s not MY fault you’re too cheap to buy something important” (which is what it sounds like) is pretty snotty and totally misses my point. I see people all the time say, in a thread, “yeah, and get a load of THIS!” and there’s very little description, or mention that it’s behind a paywall. No, nobody “owes” anyone anything. That being said, I still think it’s kind of, “hey, you mind giving us a heads up if it’s yet ANOTHER publication I might have pay for? Or at least do you have an alternative? kthanxbye” (Often times the same article is published elsewhere, or something that says the same basic shit) ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-quit-using-articles-behind-paywalls-as-your-sources-mild/840481/45 "2019-09-20T00:18:36Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > (Or at least, copy and paste the pertinent paragraphs besides providing a link. We’ll take your word that it’s from there). Ah, okay. Yeah, I’ll always do that–but a failure to include the pertinent paragraphs is itself some bullshit behavior, whether or not the source is paywalled. The link is offered so that folks who are interested can go read more, and also verify that I’m not misquoting/taking out of context what I’ve quoted. Washington Post is a magnificent source of information. Refusing to cite it because it’s paywalled would be a ridiculous impediment to conversation. But citing it without quoting the relevant paragraphs would be lazy asshole posting anyway. I can’t agree with the OP. But I can agree that folks should always quote the relevant sections of their cites. ---
**Author:** ![Taesahnim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/taesahnim/32/84_2.png) [@Taesahnim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taesahnim)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-quit-using-articles-behind-paywalls-as-your-sources-mild/840481/46 "2019-09-20T01:20:43Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > I’m probably not the only one who feels this way. Someone posts an article or a link to support an argument, but it’s on a website where you have to either sign up to read, or be a paying subscriber. I find that really fucking annoying. Not to mention a lot of times people don’t even bother mentioning that there’s a paywall. > > Some websites, like the WaPo, only let you read so many articles for free, or you have to disable ad blockers. > > I don’t think there should be a rule about this, just that it’s kind of a douchey thing to do. YMMV I agree, completely. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-quit-using-articles-behind-paywalls-as-your-sources-mild/840481/47 "2019-09-20T01:44:53Z")
If someone is talking about a television show or movie do I demand that they give me a free link? No. I decide whether it’s worth my while to pay for it. It’s the same for al content, including news articles. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > I, and I’m sure most people, cannot simply subscribe to every single publication out there. (And I’m sure there are people here who MIGHT not be able to afford to do so, and some who are minors and don’t have the means to do so?) Not my point. Sometimes you have to choose whether to pay for access to an original source or rely on someone else’s account of it. Having to make that choice isn’t an injustice. It’s just life. As I said, it’s just one it was before the internet. Sometimes you can’t get your hands on your own copy of a source. So it’s up to you whether you trust the word of the person paraphrasing or quoting from it. > [@](#): > > Saying, “well, you should be willing to pay, it’s not MY fault you’re too cheap to buy something important” (which is what it sounds like) is pretty snotty and totally misses my point. No, it’s not that you’re too cheap to buy something. It’s that you expect never even to have to make the choice of whether to pay or not. Sometimes in life you are faced with that decision. And on this board what that means is “Do I pay or do I take this poster’s word for what it says and maybe wait for someone else to corroborate. > [@](#): > > I see people all the time say, in a thread, “yeah, and get a load of THIS!” and there’s very little description, Any link, regardless of content, should be accompanied by sufficient information to convey sufficient understanding of what’s behind it. No links should be blind. But that’s not a reason to avoid citing to stories from the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, it any other major news source based on whether there’s a paywall or registration required or limited free articles. Those kinds of sources are too important to even make an effort to avoid. And their paywalls shouldn’t be avoided. People should be faced with their content occasionally because sometimes someone will decide its worth their while to pay. Giving people the opportunity to pay for good journalism is a good thing. (And let me be clear about this—free registration is not any kind of unreasonable impediment, neither is an anti-adblock wall or a five articles free limit. If that’s too much for you take, I have zero sympathy. When it comes to a full-on paywall then I decide whether it’s worth my while to pay or not. That’s not the problem of the person making a citation.) ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-quit-using-articles-behind-paywalls-as-your-sources-mild/840481/48 "2019-09-20T02:28:54Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > I disagree. There’s nothing douchey about the idea that truthful information or valuable content is worth an exchange of value. People should pay for news, especially the news from high-quality news operations. > > And if the source is actually offering content for merely signing up, and not charging money, then there’s no issue. If you want the information, then just sign up. It’s not douchey to link to it. If signing up is somehow beyond your capacity, that’s on you. > > People should become accustomed to the idea that professionals producing news need to be paid. An occasional reminder of that from a link to a paywalled article—or even a limited free offer—is a good thing. Bullshit. If you’re going to link to a paywalled article, don’t bother. If you do, I’ll remember, and Google up an alternate source. ETA - “Bullshit” also applies to your other six posts, above. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-quit-using-articles-behind-paywalls-as-your-sources-mild/840481/49 "2019-09-20T02:33:36Z")
Here’s a question for all those reading this; what are some good non-paywalled sources? The first two that come to mind are The Guardian (although they have a bit at the end of the articles pleading for a contribution) and Wikipedia. Can you think of any other sources? ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-quit-using-articles-behind-paywalls-as-your-sources-mild/840481/50 "2019-09-20T02:49:18Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > Here’s a question for all those reading this; what are some good non-paywalled sources? The first two that come to mind are The Guardian (although they have a bit at the end of the articles pleading for a contribution) and Wikipedia. > > Can you think of any other sources? I agree about The Guardian. It was one of the ones I listed in post #26, along with some others. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-quit-using-articles-behind-paywalls-as-your-sources-mild/840481/51 "2019-09-20T03:03:26Z")
Thanks; you had some good suggestions. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-quit-using-articles-behind-paywalls-as-your-sources-mild/840481/52 "2019-09-20T03:27:21Z")
I completely disagree with the op. I like to link to sources that I believe are reliable, and that report clearly. That means I may link to sites that are good enough that I’m willing to pay for them. That doesn’t mean I think you need to pay, and I do try to quote enough that you can tell what the gist is without paying yourself. But if you don’t trust me to truthfully summarize a site that is publicly available (for pay, but to lots of people) then tough shit. > [@Smapti](#): > > At times I’ve wondered how much disinformation gets spread to the public on account of the fact that if you look up a story, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the LA Times are all paywalled, but the Washington Times, Breitbart, and Daily Caller aren’t. yup > [@Broomstick](#): > > Really? Because I have an entirely electronic subscription to the _New York Times_, with nothing being dropped on my porch. Yeah, I have electronic subscriptions to the NYT, the WaPo, the Guardian, the New Yorker, and some free sources, including Reuters, NPR, and Al Jazeera. I get a paper copy as well as electronic if the Wall Street Journal, because i like to read it on the train. > [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > Here’s a question for all those reading this; what are some good non-paywalled sources? The first two that come to mind are The Guardian (although they have a bit at the end of the articles pleading for a contribution) and Wikipedia. > > Can you think of any other sources? I like NPR. WaPo may as well be free because it’s easy to read without paying. Ditto the New Yorker, which has published some surprisingly good journalism recently. I will say, though, that there’s no chance I will watch a you tube video unless you give me a damn good reason. If your source is you tube, you’d better summarize it well. I also find Twitter links annoying, and think posters should summarize the point of the link. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-quit-using-articles-behind-paywalls-as-your-sources-mild/840481/53 "2019-09-20T07:48:40Z")
leaving aside news cites … Paywalls are often unavoidable for citing full scientific papers. Not as much of that stuff as we’d like is open access. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-quit-using-articles-behind-paywalls-as-your-sources-mild/840481/54 "2019-09-20T08:03:14Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Really? Because I have an entirely electronic subscription to the _New York Times_, with nothing being dropped on my porch. I meant figuratively. The only way to subscribe is to subscribe to the _entire publication_, which was a necessity when the way you got it was that the whole thing was printed and dropped on your porch. There’s often no middle ground between no support whatsoever and buying the entire thing. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-quit-using-articles-behind-paywalls-as-your-sources-mild/840481/55 "2019-09-20T14:44:07Z")
I rarely get around the paywall/signup problem by quoting the important passage in the article. If someone wants to believe I’m making up the whole thing, that’s their problem. Sometimes a juicy tidbit (medical or political) has only one source with limited access. > [@kambuckta](#): > > On a similar note, don’t post fucken links to YouTube without some sort of commentary. I am NOT going to sit through x minutes of video to get you point, especially when I’m working. I agree, this is double-plus ungood. It’s especially bad when the video linked to is over two hours long and the relevant part lasts a minute. There’s actually a simple way to link to the part of the video that (supposedly) supports your argument - use it! ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-quit-using-articles-behind-paywalls-as-your-sources-mild/840481/56 "2019-09-20T22:29:22Z")
Really? So… how do you link to a part of a video rather than a whole? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-quit-using-articles-behind-paywalls-as-your-sources-mild/840481/57 "2019-09-20T22:45:18Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Really? So… how do you link to a part of a video rather than a whole? [https://youtubetime.com/](https://youtubetime.com/) [Highlander first fight](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtN7yppQzUc&t=5m49s) ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-quit-using-articles-behind-paywalls-as-your-sources-mild/840481/58 "2019-09-20T22:51:08Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Really? So… how do you link to a part of a video rather than a whole? With YouTube videos, you can start at a particular time within the video. Play the video on your computer, and at the time you want to start, right-click on the video and select “Copy video URL at current time” from the context menu. Here’s a link to a 10-hour YouTube video. If you click the link, you’ll begin the video at 6:10:03. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/AgpWX18dby4/maxresdefault.jpg "Open Ocean: 10 Hours of Relaxing Oceanscapes | BBC Earth") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgpWX18dby4&t=22203) Basically, you take the regular YouTube link for the video, and add the following: ?t=[number of seconds] So, ?t=60 will start the video one minute in. And ?t=22203 will start the video 6 hours, 10 minutes, and 3 seconds in. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2019, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-quit-using-articles-behind-paywalls-as-your-sources-mild/840481/59 "2019-09-21T00:13:36Z")
Thanks! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-quit-using-articles-behind-paywalls-as-your-sources-mild/840481.md?page=2)