The kind of monkeys that click on ads are hardly likely to be smart enough to use even firefox let alone adblock plus.

If I want something I'll look for it, I don't need it rammed down my throat.

Also, most of the "news" (read, hatemongering bilge) that Murdoch puts out I won't wipe my digital backside with.

I do however understand the problem. Once information becomes free and there is no profit who is going to pay for the REAL journalism? The kind that digs up news Watergate, no WMDs in Iraq, Abu Ghraib etc.

It's a worrying trend but then that's the society that we've chosen - one that's only motive is profit with news being a mere vehicle to sell you products to consume.

Rant over.

@A Reader

No. It's not stealing to not watch all kinds of incredible floating flash ads all over their text.

If it's my computer, then I get to decide how my browser renders your sorry ass page.

Many publishers have brought this upon themselves with extremely annoying flash ads and even running ads that contain viral Javascript. The rest are collateral damage, which is always sad, but unavoidable.

Reality is online ad revenue, especially for mass media (such as national newspapers) isnt holding up especially on yields and performance. As many people on this site comment often, they use ad blockers etc which at the end of the day is similar to stealing content since its what pays for the sites upkeep. Online advertisers either look for branding or clicks throughs or both, and measure both for every campaign if these advertisers go away publishers will have no other option than to either close up shop or look for other revenue streams

The fact is both Newspapers and Online Media agencies cannot survive on just revenue for news content alone, they all rely heavily on payments from advertising.

Hence restricting access to any of these sites will seriously reduce revenue streams from advertisements, etc.

Signed Carl Barron Chairman of agpcuk