So, it’s not bad enough when I go to a newspaper’s web-site that I have to endure ads all over the screen, ads that pop-up, ads that elongate, ads that pop up when you hit highlighted words in the content and video ads that talk to you. Now some newspapers want me to pay for the privilege of putting up with all of this.
The London Times decided awhile back to start charging for the privilege of being assaulted by advertisements and I haven’t been back since, nor will I EVER pay to read their newspaper. I can already get the same stuff from many other websites for free, so why should I pay them? Talk about clueless!
Today I see the clueless management at the New York Times is going to do the same thing, which is to start charging me to be assaulted by ads. Well, all I can say is bye-bye New York Times boneheads, because I won’t be back to read your stuff or view your ads. Again, I can go elsewhere to get the same news and frankly I don’t think I’ll miss any of your columnists either, especially if I have to pay to read their liberal babbling, which is also something I can get plenty of for free elsewhere online.
Now, I do subscribe to my local newspaper and yes it has ads, but they don’t pop-up or assault my eardrums. I find paying for the local paper is fine because it doesn’t assault my senses and there’s something not right about reading the computer at breakfast. As an added bonus, it makes great cat box liner for those with feline friends, something you can’t do with your computer either, unless you want to electrocute kitty.
Now, if someone wants to get smart and perhaps charge a fee to view their newspaper or magazine WITHOUT THE DAMN ADS I might just take them up on it, but until then it’s adios!