news of the world goes pay to view

I can see why you'd pay for the Times (and other such quality papers or more niche ones like the WSJ) but the News of The World or any other red top crap?

I'll stick with the BBC thanks. That and Twitter. Social Media tends to get the news out quicker nowadays. As long as you verify the source that is!
 
Up until now I wasn't sure the News Of The World (was ever a title more inappropriately named?) had a website since I've never gone looking for it but I suspect I'll lose nothing by not subscribing. Still it'll be interesting to see how it fares on a subscription model.
 
I hope all the red tops follow suit. Dumb people should be charged for their "news" while the rest of us actually hear about real issues of the day from the BBC and so on instead of "Chantelle beds Beckham" or "Study finds pigs have a snout" that you get in these papers.
 
Obviously those caught with their trousers down (The NoTW's specialty) will be more than happy to pay to see what's been said. They'll probably recover the costs at litigation because most of what the NoTW says is borderline anyway.
 
It's ok for me as I don't read the NOtW. I have no real interest in hearing for the thousandth time that Kerry Katona is skint but just paid 12 grand for liposuction, Katie Price is a control freak and had an argument with Alex, Posh is paranoid that David is shagging about, a fake sheikh has snared a celeb into buying drugs or selling their ex husbands access for 500,000 and that Ed is red.

The paper is suitable for budgie's to take a dump on at the bottom if the cage so I might just give the website a miss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom