4 ms·
The New York Times? Wired? Guardian? WSJ? ProPublica?
by matt4077 10y ago
The New York Times? Wired? Guardian? WSJ? ProPublica?
- TeMPOraL 10y agoYes. Yes. Yes. WSJ really can't figure out a business model for itself? ProPublica - you understand the conflict of interest present here?
- matt4077 10y agoI reduced the op's statement to 'I don't care about content provided by professional writers' because each and every one of them/the institutions employing them is/has been trying to figure out a business model. And the WSJ is as far as I know not one of those offering a full RSS feed for free, so that'd probably fall under "not honest" in their definition.
- TeMPOraL 10y agoOne thing I notice that needs to be pointed out: "professional writers" != "good writers". "Professional" is sometimes treated as a synonym for "good" / "serious", but IMO shouldn't because it isn't. Professional writers are those who write for a living. Today's market does not promote good writing. So yeah, I don't care about content provided by professsional writers, because more often than not, it's not content worth reading.
- Freak_NL 10y agoNewspapers actually do have a shot at figuring this out. Some let you read a few articles for free, and ask for a small payment for more, some experiment with publishing platforms for per-article content via micro-payments (e.g., https://blendle.com https://blendle.com), others simply make a selection of articles and news available for free to act as an advertisement for their paid subscriptions.