3 ms·

There was a time when subscriptions formed a much greater proportion of journalistic income than they do now. >You're mythologizing an imagined past which neve

There was a time when subscriptions formed a much greater proportion of journalistic income than they do now. >You're mythologizing an imagined past which never existed You seem intent on building up straw men and tearing them down. I'll let you do it in peace. >Personally, I find advertising a much more palatable funding source than pollution from a dictatorship. > >[0] http://www.businessinsider.com/the-new-york-times-now-gets-m.. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-new-york-times-now-gets-m.... Pollution from a dictatorship? What? I'd much rather read the New York Times than the filth spewed out by businessinsider, bad though the New York Times often is.

morgante 11y ago
> There was a time when subscriptions formed a much greater proportion of journalistic income than they do now. You're clearly intent on ignoring my argument, because otherwise you would actually check the citation which I offered. It directly refutes this point. Taking the NYT as an example, only in the last few years has subscription revenue formed a greater proportion of revenue than advertising. > You seem intent on building up straw men and tearing them down. I'll let you do it in peace. I think you're the one building a straw man. If you want to engage in an actual argument, offer some counter-citations. > Pollution from a dictatorship? What? Al Jazeera is only able to produce journalism without relying in advertising because the Qatari government funds it with oil money.