Miami Herald asks online readers for donations

The Miami Herald began Tuesday asking readers of its Web site to voluntarily pay for the privilege, a new wrinkle in newspapers’ ongoing battle to increase revenue from their online operations. A link at the bottom of online stories directed readers to a separate page that accepts credit card information. A short message thanks them for making the site “South Florida’s most-read news destination on the web,” and asks them to support the content. The McClatchy Co. newspaper has cut hundreds of employees in recent years as the weekday circulation of its print edition has fallen by almost 25 percent in the last year to about 163,000 and 14 percent on Sundays to about 238,000, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations. By comparison, the paper says 5 million different readers visit its Web site each month. “ features all the coverage of The Miami Herald’s award-winning print edition, plus breaking news and multimedia extras including video, audio, slideshows and searchable databases,” the message reads. “If you value The Miami Herald’s local news reporting and investigations, but prefer the convenience of the Internet, please consider a voluntary payment for the web news that matters to you.” Elissa Vanaver, a Herald vice president, said some readers had already donated, though she didn’t have specific numbers


5 thoughts on “Miami Herald asks online readers for donations

  1. Tarus

    There is no way in hell, I’d ever consider donating one red cent to that feral institution they call a newspaper co. Their reporting is so partial to Cubans and Jews. I only read it just to know what they are saying.

    SV Reply – while I respect your views and your right to hold these views (hence I am leaving them on this post) I do not remotely agree with the language you have chosen to use and would ask you to refrain for this in future. A phrase such as ‘partial to the Republicans or the Democrats’ would have been no problem – not Cubans or Jews this is a phrase I object to.

  2. Lamont

    I was extremely disappointed to read your reply on my earlier comment. I immediately thought it was for the use of the word, hell – and if it had been, I would have bashfully conceded. However,u it was for my reference to Jews and Cubans, which the paper seems to over!?

  3. Lamont

    I was extremely disappointed to read your reply on my earlier comment. I immediately thought it was for the use of the word, hell – and if it had been, I would have bashfully conceded the point. You instead were more incensed by my reference to Jews and Cubans, which the paper categorically favors above all in no uncertain terms! There is no equanimity whatsoever! I’m not alone in this regard by the way. In fact, Jews are so privileged throughout the world that their crimes or missteps are given an almost God-like untouchable status; Simply saying so, doesn’t make me antisemitic (I’m not!) I think…that’s what concerns you most! Additionally, the paper’s incessant badgering of Chavez because of his association with Castro was not unlike their absolute and total rejection of Nelson Mandela who visited Cuba some time after his release from an apartheid prison (where he served some 27 years) to thank him for his support. The whole Cuban community with all their Press (El Nuevo Herald) denigrated the man until blacks leveled an effective boycott against the city choking out black dollars and garnering unpopular criticism from around the world forcing the city to account for its sins yielding some employment concessions for blacks on South Beach (which ultimately bore no fruit).

    Hey look, while you were big enough to admit your displeasure and even permit my comment to remain…it is clear that you do not understand the spirit of the U.S. Constitution regarding the first amendment. Perhaps it was your fears of being seen as approving the heckling of Jews that prompted your hapless reply. Believe it or not, I personally would defend someone’s right to use he word Ni*@a, because his loss of free speech today is my loss tomorrow. The ebb and flow of supposed reprimands like the one you countered will inevitably kill the first amendment. Consider doing some research on Obama’s shoring up of hate speech legislation. Anyway, I was actually studying your blog format and its daily maintenance but don’t worry about such things. I will refrain from leaving comments altogether and eventually…your website.

    Happy New Year!

    1. stevevirgin Post author

      The basic human right to freedom of speech does not include the right to insult, offend, provoke or incite hatred to anyone regardless of their sex, colour or creed. However, on a personal level, if you choose to leave the site I cannot say I will lose much sleep. Even so, as an individual I still also wish you and your family well and a healthy and successful 2010 and beyond regardless.

  4. Lamont

    ¡No me pude aguantar comentar una vez mas en absoluto! Ok, this will most certainly be my last input. You wrote: The basic human right to freedom of speech does not include the right to insult, offend, provoke or incite hatred.

    My question is: According to whom? Maybe your OWN extraneous sensibilities, or the UN, whose efforts to impose a world hate speech legislation through various channels are reminiscent of the Roman Empire prohibiting people from saying Caesar is not their Emperor, or whatever delimiting laws may exist in the U.K. on this matter. But it is NOT the case according to the first amendment of our American Constitution, which states:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
    the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (Entire 1st Amendment)

    Key statement here is this: or abridging the freedom of speech. I’m going to assume you know what abridging is. Why is this important? Because if they (the powers that be) abridge free speech for this today, sooner or later, they’ll abridge free speech for that tomorrow. In the end, you won’t be able to say anything about anybody anywhere.

    All I wrote in the very beginning was this: Their reporting is so partial to Cubans and Jews.

    That was a subjective statement. Yes! But I don’t see how you, sir, can smugly infer from that statement alone that I have some deep-seated animus for Cubans or Jews, or that my intent was to incite hatred for those two distinct ethnic groups. If the paper today had decided to instead become partial to blacks and Palestinians, it would still be partial and therefore, still wrong!

    Moreover, it is obvious that you do not know South Florida well enough or read the Herald in these parts with any meaningful regularity. Again let me restate my glaring disappointment for your lack of comprehension of free speech. I would have thought more of someone who is “media focused”.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s