Star Tribune's sort-of pay wall

The Star Tribune is walling off some Vikings content. I don't think it will turn out well. I wonder how much cash the lousy newscast is bringing in?

http://www.minnpost.com/braublog/2009/09/11/11473/the_star_tribune_prepares_a_new_paywall

 

I can understand the appeal, maybe, of clicking on my computer to see print people doing audio and video if the info and insights are good enough.

I cannot imagine ever paying for it. Then it's just talk radio online, with the newspaper's people regurgitating their own stories the way other media folk regurgitate them already. For free.

 

Of course, a lot of people said the same thing about radio. Why get satellite radio when you have terestrial radio for free?

And then you get it and realize that it's awesome. Worth the 12 bucks or 20 bucks or however much it cost per month to have, cause now you can listen to niche music or comedy or talk without searching for stations on trips.

Not saying newspapers will get there, but it's not like things don't change.

 

A couple of weeks ago I was scanning the S-T on-line on a Sunday and they were teasing a newspaper-only feature on the Gophers' new stadium.

That's the first time I've seen a paper tease the print product that way. Anybody know of any other papers doing that?

 

The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead has done it within the past few weeks. My paper will do it shortly for in-depth stuff.

 

Glen Crevier is useless.

 

I saw that too recently. One problem is, the stories they were keeping behind the "print" firewall weren't all that special. One section had a good one but other sections of the paper just slapped that print-only label on ordinary features. I think they release them to the Web site after a few days and you wonder, what was the big deal?