Friday, March 26, 2004
This is so partisan it makes me cringe
For a while now I've read Salon.com on a semi-weekly basis. Since I'm rom the "Internet-must-be-free" generation, I don't subscribe to Salon, probably part of the reason Salon regularly sheds staff in much the same way a large dog sheds hair.
Salon came up with a great method of making money outside of subscriptions. They make their aartices availabel for free, but you can only read the first two or three paragraphs. In order to read the complete article, one must watch a thirth second ad from a sponsor. Salon then recoups their revenue from advertising dollars paid by these sponsors.
Yesterday Salon.com published a rebuttal interview and article by Richard Clarke, the former terrorism czar who has blasted the Bush Administration for failing to have a plan to combat terrorism prior to 9/11. It's an important article in that Clarke's allegations have been widely reported and its the most important story and discussion debate of the week. What I find outrageous is that Salon decided this article was 'so important' that they posted it to the site without the obligatory ad link. That's right. This article, out of all the hundreds of articles they print weekly, warranted letting people read ad-free. Is it because it is that important, or is because that the article block is the point where most readers elect not to complete an article? I've done it. Given that the most important information in a news article are in the first two or three paragraphs, it is possible to read that and get a good idea of the complete story. Removing the ad just proves this magazine's political stance moreso than a need to disseminate important facts.
I was going to link to it, but going back to Salon today it appears the article has gone back to you must watch an ad first format
------------------------------------------------