5 ms·

> Okay, but how can it change? I'm pretty sure this is a "yellow journalism period" on the internet but it will get worse before it gets better since the commo

> Okay, but how can it change? I'm pretty sure this is a "yellow journalism period" on the internet but it will get worse before it gets better since the common man needs to completely lose faith in these rags like they did with tabloids. Clickbait is alot like the tabloids and yellow journalism of print media, honestly. > Where will the money come from? Subscriptions most likely. It'll be newspapers written to favor the desires/biases of the upper middle class who would consider dropping $100/year for such a thing.

marcosdumay 11y ago
When in history did newspapers ever survive on subscriptions? I've seen and read about papers that survived on ads, and papers financed by causes. Never seen any successful paper on any other format. Yes, the Internet makes new things possible, but how can you be that sure?
- fweespee_ch 11y ago
  I didn't say no ads. I'm talking about the clickbait, tabloid-quality reporting, sponsored content, etc. Aka the stuff directly embedded as an "article" on the site
- qznc 11y ago
  Yes, ads and causes seem to be the two big sources of money. I cannot think of a third one. We agree that ads are dead. That logically leaves us with causes. The problem with causes are that they are inherently biased. However, there are usually sources for each side. Maybe we should embrace the bias? Instead of looking for objectivity and an ideal of journalism, we could try to balance biases. Google started with Page Rank, which tries to calculate authority (and thus implicitly objectivity) into a single number. Maybe AI technology can identify all relevant causes for each topic, balance bias, and present a wealth of opinions and the facts they agree on? Sure, the "balance bias" step is the problematic one, because here a gatekeepers occurs.
  - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    In the 30s, business opposition to FDR and the New Deal programs ushered forth a wave of propaganda inciting distrust in government control of the economy while promoting the ability of American industry to raise living standards. As a result, the Roosevelt Administration countered with a series of public service films informing the public of subversive private propaganda and demonstrating ways to detect hidden or covert biases. At first I laughed when I heard about this. I couldn't imagine anyone putting that much effort into analyzing news. But using AI? You might be on to something...
- lmm 11y ago
  Consumer Reports survives purely on subscriptions without any advertising, no? (Certainly the equivalent in my country, Which?, does - accepting any kind of advertising would compromise their independence, since by their very nature they review everything - and as a result they're significantly more expensive than comparable magazines, but enough people are willing to pay that to make it viable)
  - marcosdumay 11y ago
    Here in Brazil, they all survived on ads money, what lead to all of them going out of business once this fact got published on the internet. We don't have any one left that I know of.
- CaptainZapp 11y ago
  When in history did newspapers ever survive on subscriptions? The Economist makes ~60% of its revenues from subscribers. Sources : http://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-economist-is-winning-2011-7?IR=T http://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-economist-is-winning-... or if you prefer to delve into The Economist Group annual report you can find the 2014 edition here: http://www.economistgroup.com/pdfs/Annual_report_2014_FINAL.pdf http://www.economistgroup.com/pdfs/Annual_report_2014_FINAL.... Granted, the publication is pretty much an exception in print journalism land, but it does prove that not all is lost.

marcosdumay 11y ago

When in history did newspapers ever survive on subscriptions? I've seen and read about papers that survived on ads, and papers financed by causes. Never seen any successful paper on any other format. Yes, the Internet makes new things possible, but how can you be that sure?

fweespee_ch 11y ago
I didn't say no ads. I'm talking about the clickbait, tabloid-quality reporting, sponsored content, etc. Aka the stuff directly embedded as an "article" on the site
qznc 11y ago
Yes, ads and causes seem to be the two big sources of money. I cannot think of a third one. We agree that ads are dead. That logically leaves us with causes. The problem with causes are that they are inherently biased. However, there are usually sources for each side. Maybe we should embrace the bias? Instead of looking for objectivity and an ideal of journalism, we could try to balance biases. Google started with Page Rank, which tries to calculate authority (and thus implicitly objectivity) into a single number. Maybe AI technology can identify all relevant causes for each topic, balance bias, and present a wealth of opinions and the facts they agree on? Sure, the "balance bias" step is the problematic one, because here a gatekeepers occurs.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  In the 30s, business opposition to FDR and the New Deal programs ushered forth a wave of propaganda inciting distrust in government control of the economy while promoting the ability of American industry to raise living standards. As a result, the Roosevelt Administration countered with a series of public service films informing the public of subversive private propaganda and demonstrating ways to detect hidden or covert biases. At first I laughed when I heard about this. I couldn't imagine anyone putting that much effort into analyzing news. But using AI? You might be on to something...
lmm 11y ago
Consumer Reports survives purely on subscriptions without any advertising, no? (Certainly the equivalent in my country, Which?, does - accepting any kind of advertising would compromise their independence, since by their very nature they review everything - and as a result they're significantly more expensive than comparable magazines, but enough people are willing to pay that to make it viable)
- marcosdumay 11y ago
  Here in Brazil, they all survived on ads money, what lead to all of them going out of business once this fact got published on the internet. We don't have any one left that I know of.
CaptainZapp 11y ago
When in history did newspapers ever survive on subscriptions? The Economist makes ~60% of its revenues from subscribers. Sources : http://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-economist-is-winning-2011-7?IR=T http://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-economist-is-winning-... or if you prefer to delve into The Economist Group annual report you can find the 2014 edition here: http://www.economistgroup.com/pdfs/Annual_report_2014_FINAL.pdf http://www.economistgroup.com/pdfs/Annual_report_2014_FINAL.... Granted, the publication is pretty much an exception in print journalism land, but it does prove that not all is lost.