4 ms·

I don't really hate professional journalism, I hate news. I only read them because I have to. This aside, the actual, relevant problem is not what is en vogue

by gkya 10y ago

I don't really hate professional journalism, I hate news. I only read them because I have to. This aside, the actual, relevant problem is not what is en vogue to hate or not, but that the trustible institutions take the easy route and instead of producing nice subscription models and actual, valuable content with good, concise, precise wording and without clickbait posts; they just push sub-par stuff and ads to feed off of them. If there was a NYT or L'espresso for my country I'd subscribe.

notahacker 10y ago
I think a world in which all the trustworthy institutions hide all their content behind paywalls and so most people rely entirely on clickbait stuff from sources that don't have reputations to live up to is even worse...
- gkya 10y ago
  So many "all"s used for a single sentence. They can have a free headline+summary feed, or a paid daily digest, or paid columns+digest and rest gratis. Monetising content is more honest, more predictable and better for the users' privacy and their bandwidth than ads, and I'm telling that I'd buy if they'd supply. At the end of the day, collecting, verifying, editing and publishing news is not free for the news agencies, it's not produced for free and need not be free at all.
  - notahacker 10y ago
    So many "alls" (two!) because plenty of paid-for content already exists alongside the free media, and thus your principal complaint is that many news organizations have the temerity to cater to and profit from people that don't want to pay for news as well. And if the objection is to people being misinformed by clickbait headlines and sensationalised takes on events in articles, I'm struggling to imagine anything that could be more inclined to worsen that situation than increasing the proportion of respectable news organisations that tell people they can pay a monthly fee to access the articles behind the headlines or bugger off and read Breitbart's take on it instead...

by gkya 10y ago

notahacker 10y ago

I think a world in which all the trustworthy institutions hide all their content behind paywalls and so most people rely entirely on clickbait stuff from sources that don't have reputations to live up to is even worse...

gkya 10y ago
So many "all"s used for a single sentence. They can have a free headline+summary feed, or a paid daily digest, or paid columns+digest and rest gratis. Monetising content is more honest, more predictable and better for the users' privacy and their bandwidth than ads, and I'm telling that I'd buy if they'd supply. At the end of the day, collecting, verifying, editing and publishing news is not free for the news agencies, it's not produced for free and need not be free at all.
- notahacker 10y ago
  So many "alls" (two!) because plenty of paid-for content already exists alongside the free media, and thus your principal complaint is that many news organizations have the temerity to cater to and profit from people that don't want to pay for news as well. And if the objection is to people being misinformed by clickbait headlines and sensationalised takes on events in articles, I'm struggling to imagine anything that could be more inclined to worsen that situation than increasing the proportion of respectable news organisations that tell people they can pay a monthly fee to access the articles behind the headlines or bugger off and read Breitbart's take on it instead...