Reuters paywall will shut out millions of readers

It's sad to see Reuters implementing a paywall. The price is actually very reasonable, £1 per week, and it's a metered paywall so people will be able to view a few articles free each month.

But while £1 a week is a trivial amount for those of us in affluent nations, for many in impoverished and unstable countries it is likely to be a luxury they prefer not to pay for.

People in places where there is no respect for freedom of the press, force fed a diet of state propaganda, are most in need of independent unbiased reporting but likely to be the least able to afford paying for it.

Most people are also unlikely to pay for a product if they can get a comparable product for free. So rather than pay even a modest amount for Reuters, many will turn to excellent free sources of news like the BBC, NPR and Al Jazeera.

In terms of how the paywall will impact me, I used to routinely link to Reuters stories in my newsletter, but because many of my 22,000 subscribers probably won't pay for Reuters, I will have to stop linking to them and use alternative free sources instead.

Reuters is withdrawing from the global conversation, shutting itself behind a paywall that will severely reduce the number of people reading its coverage.

All the goodwill and influence built up by providing excellent news for free, which established a worldwide reputation which can then be leveraged to sell premium specialist information -- which is where the real money is -- will be lost.

It will be sad for Reuters journalists too. All journalists want our work to be read and viewed by the largest possible audience. Now Reuters journalists will have a fraction of the readers and viewers they had before this change.

I understand the struggle for news organisations to remain financially viable in the 21st century, but I fear more will be lost than gained from shutting out millions of readers. ■