Comment is not free (not at The Sun Chronicle anyway)

The comments section of websites can be a bit of a minefield. Now popularly lampooned in satirical magazine Private Eye, they can attract postings that are trying to be funny, are full of ignorance, full of spite or all three. But one US newspaper is trying to nip the abuse in the bud.

The Columbia Journalism Review has flagged up a Guardian article which looks at an interesting use of paywall technology – purely in the comments section.

The Sun Chronicle, a paper in Massachusetts, has put the paywall in place to try and prevent the appearance of what they describe as abusive, obscene or “otherwise nasty” comments.

In an interview with CJR on Wednesday, Sun Chronicle publisher Oreste D’Arconte explained that money has nothing to do with the decision.

The one-time fee of 99cents, she says, is to cover the charge of processing the credit card, which they use to verify the user’s name and location before discarding the details.

The Web staff felt they were wasting too much time deleting inappropriate comments and policing repeat offenders. D’Arconte and his staff wanted a way to encourage dialogue, while holding people accountable for what they said. Those who pay the fee and post abusive material will be banned from the comments section.

It may make life easier in terms of moderation but whether the 15,000-strong readership feel that their comment is important enough to warrant the joining fee and hassle of entering their card details remains to be seen.

The Times puts up its paywall

After a lot of speculation, News International is finally putting up its paywalls on The Times and the Sunday Times, reports blogger Jon Slattery.

From today (July 2) access to the sites will cost £1 per day, or £2 per week – although in an introductory offer, all customers will be allowed 30 days access for just £1. There is a seperate charge for the iPad edition.

CEO Rebekah Brooks said in an email to staff: “We have been very pleased with the response from readers since the sites were launched in May. They both showcase our award-winning journalism in a very visual way, giving readers exclusive content and interactivity so that they can get even more from the news. We believe that they offer real value and we look forward to continuing to innovate for our readers."

But with the survey results highlighted yesterday, it remains to be seen whether the paywalls will pay off.

We prefer print...and we don't like to pay for news

'Tis the season for surveys and anyone who fancies themself a futurologist may wish to take a gander at two results highlighted by The Guardian's digital blog and see if they saw these ones coming.

Both make for depressing reading for those at the vanguard of online journalism (Rupert Murdoch may especially want to look away now).

According to the first survey, conducted by Ipsos, 63% of 501 online adults said they would prefer to access the printed copy of their chosen newspaper – while only 11% would choose to access it digitally.

Of this 11%, most said they would prefer to pay a one-time charge for a mobile app, while 3% of those surveyed said they would opt for a monthly online subscription. Daily subscription charges, or per-article fees were not popular.

Unsurprisingly, reports The Guardian, just over half (51%) of the 15- to 50-year-olds surveyed in May said the biggest barrier to accessing paid-for news online is a reluctance to pay – 31% said they would not pay while it is available elsewhere online for free.

Similarly, the story flags a YouGov survey of 2,160 UK adults, also released today, which found that 60% of adults think it is worth paying for a "good newspaper" with a whopping 83% saying they would refuse to pay for online content.

It doesn't bode well for those umming and ahhing over paywalls. The question is, will the small fraction who will pay for news content be enough to turn the fortunes of struggling media outlets?