Cnn.com is one of the most visited websites in the world.

It's been free for ever.

In 2021, they tried cnn+ which made it 1 month.

Now, they are limiting access and only giving readers a limited number of free articles to read. I haven't been able to find out how many articles that is, but you'll get prompted to pay pretty quickly.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2024-10-01/as-pay-tv-revenues-diminish-cnn-puts-a-pay-wall-on-its-web-site

I have my doubts many people will pay for something that was free their entire life. If it makes their fall that much quicker, than so be it. I think this is a massively stupid move.

I just move on when I encounter a paywall. Not going to pay for news, especially when almost all "news"is editorialized to drive a narrative, and I have to discern between facts and opinion.

If I eventually run out of free "news" to read, well, I'll find something different to do with my time. But it won't be paying them a subscription, lol.

I don't go to CNN.com often but this should work for emergencies.

Use Brave.
Go to CNN.com
Click the Brave icon for the site.
Block cookies & scripts.
Click the "Forget me when I close this site" slider.

Worked for me at Washington Times and others. But yes, I'm not paying for that trash and I doubt many will.

Try a wget with the url.

paywallreader.com

You're welcome.

Hopefully this cuts down on the number of F16ers that come running to tell us what CNN said this time.

If you want news. Go to X.

I understand there's ways around the pay wall. However, I dont see how cnn thinks their news is somehow worthy of pay when there are free news options out there.

I know I won't ever pay for news, especially cnn. I won't take the time to avoid the payeall either

Any important news shows up on F16, usually within hours if not faster.

So why go anywhere other than TexAgs?

al jazeera news is more factually than cnn.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I just move on when I encounter a paywall. Not going to pay for news, especially when almost all "news"is editorialized to drive a narrative, and I have to discern between facts and opinion.

If I eventually run out of free "news" to read, well, I'll find something different to do with my time. But it won't be paying them a subscription, lol.

---

I know, crazy to pay for something when I get it for free.

Imagine paying for propaganda...

Adding a paywall is a way for failing businesses to launder money.

SMM48 said:

---

If you want news. Go to X.

---

It is very hurtful to professional journalists whe you bypass their curated context and rely upon X. It's even more hurtful when Elon threatens their $25MM salary by potentially buying MSNBC.

https://rumble.com/v5t38uz-rachel-maddow-freaks-out-after-learning-that-elon-musk-may-buy-msnbc.html

"never stop the liberal MSM from making a mistake"
Forgive me Napoleon.

mannerheim77 said:

---

paywallreader.com

You're welcome.

---

Yeah, the thing is it's just not worth it most of the time. Unless I see commentary on trash paywall sites that leads me to want to go through the hassle, I won't do it.

Heck, I once (early 2000's) had my homepage to NYT.com just to keep an eye on what the enemy is saying/thinking, but I don't visit their site (or WaPo, WSJ, or Bloomberg) any longer just because it's a waste of time to click through and I am not even going to consider logging in or subscribing. Their attempts to monetize paying subscribers vs. getting more viewers/clicks (from a vastly more diverse/younger readership) is just going to continue to fail, which will continue the death spiral then of their hiring younger/cheaper ideologues to write for them in ever lower quality propaganda/"journalism".

I used to read them regularly. Not anymore. For decades i have made it a point to read a mix of right and left leaning sites. CNN actually was some what neutral imo way back when, but they have shifted extremely left over the years. Trump turned them very hard left, to the point i consider then more biased activists than journalists.

I think the subscription thing is a desperate attempt to try something new. Thier current business model is failing so i assume they figure they need to change up their business. I think the subscription option is stupid for them, but eh, i don't care about them anymore.

Psycho Bunny said:

---

al jazeera news is more factually than cnn.

---

So is RT.com

LOL!

The essential content of the article will appear on X by some poster within 10 minutes of being posted. Makes no sense to pay for it when you can get it for free.

A - Don't go to cnn.com.
and 2 - Their business model is bleeding money. This is an attempt to try to generate some revenue. Traditional media is dying.

Fox has been doing this for years.

I believe Trump should bring back Fireside chats in the Oval Office at least once a month, only make them like mini-press conferences. A substitute for his public rallies. Invite only non MSM journalists/podcasters and allow only one MSM outlet, chosen by lottery each chat to broadcast the event. Non MSM outlets, Fox News and NewsMax & others, would be allowed to broadcast, if they desire.

Speaking directly to the public is very important for Trump and would keep the MSM foot off the scales of public opinion.

I came here expecting a cnn.com headline like "Trump was correct all along!" or "It's now clear that the J6 hearings were a political hit piece orchestrated by various federal agencies and congress".

Someone close to Trump in the administration, please suggest this to the president. He might consider doing it!

Viper16 said:

---

Psycho Bunny said:

---

al jazeera news is more factually than cnn.

---

So is RT.com

LOL!

---

Well, they are both propaganda.

Ag with kids said:

---

Viper16 said:

---

Psycho Bunny said:

---

al jazeera news is more factually than cnn.

---

So is RT.com

LOL!

---

Well, they are both propaganda.

---

So are ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, CNN (I), MSNBC and most all of the U.S. media too.

Point being......

lol. My daily views of zero won't go over their limit.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Cnn.com is one of the most visited websites in the world.

It's been free for ever.

In 2021, they tried cnn+ which made it 1 month.

Now, they are limiting access and only giving readers a limited number of free articles to read. I haven't been able to find out how many articles that is, but you'll get prompted to pay pretty quickly.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2024-10-01/as-pay-tv-revenues-diminish-cnn-puts-a-pay-wall-on-its-web-site

I have my doubts many people will pay for something that was free their entire life. If it makes their fall that much quicker, than so be it. I think this is a massively stupid move.

---

Cnn.com is one of the most visited websites in the world.

Any idea how CNN's website visits compare to FoxNews, MSNBC, NYT, etc?

agent-maroon said:

---

Imagine paying for propaganda...

---

Well, people are paying Amazon and Goole to put listening devices in their homes. Orwell never thought we would pay Big Brother to surveil us and lie to us.

Cnn is ranked 43th most visited in the world here:

https://backlinko.com/most-popular-websites

Fox news doesn't makes an appearance.
NYT is ranked 44th.

That's out of over a billion websites.

Here's a picture of texags traffic

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I just move on when I encounter a paywall. Not going to pay for news, especially when almost all "news"is editorialized to drive a narrative, and I have to discern between facts and opinion.

If I eventually run out of free "news" to read, well, I'll find something different to do with my time. But it won't be paying them a subscription, lol.

---

I use add-ons so I can browse every thing for free.
I don't even know when someone puts a paywall.

CNN is the last corp I would pay foranything.

I won't even click your link to the LA Times. I'm done with supporting crap journalism.