4 ms·

As much as I can't stand it either, Trump is the president of the US, and making a lot of waves. It's not surprising that he is dominating the news, and it's no

As much as I can't stand it either, Trump is the president of the US, and making a lot of waves. It's not surprising that he is dominating the news, and it's not just "political blather".

Xcelerate 9y ago
It has nothing to do with Trump in particular — it's that they pick a topic and just drive it into the ground with the same news rehashed in eight different ways.
- ShannonAlther 9y ago
  The problem is that every third sentence out of the president's mouth is so disconnected from reality that it boggles the mind. If Obama, Bush, or Clinton had said even a few of the things that Trump has it would have made headlines for weeks. Every last drop of it is newsworthy, but in all it's become a flood.
  - rifung 9y ago
    While I don't disagree, at this point it's not news that the President says things which are not based in reality. I'd rather they just publish a piece every month to gather them up for those interested and publish more articles focused on what he actually did than what he said because frankly he doesn't really follow through on what he says anyway. If anything I feel like the focus on what he says is just distracting people from the more important news which is what he's doing.
- hackuser 9y ago
  Could you provide an example? That's not my experience, but maybe we are looking at different parts of the site.
js2 9y ago
The Economist provides a pretty good mix. I subscribe to it, the NYT, and the New Yorker. I probably won't renew my NYT subscription as I find myself reading it much less often since I picked up The Economist subscription. What I'd really like though is to support one or two major publications and then have a slush fund where I could pay per article to other sources. I don't know... does HN have enough readership where it could collect funds and redistribute? It's my primary source of reading random material.
- fovc 9y ago
  Check out Blendle.com. I haven't used them much recently, but I enjoyed paying for quality journalism per article. There is (or was) an HN sign up promo somewhere
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    I don't think this for-article model is a good one. It turns journalism into piecework, and while there's the opportunity to strike gold and get lucky with a particularly timely or well-received piece, it also tends to prioritize quantity over quality because the former yields more predictable rewards.
    - js2 9y ago
      Hmmm. Publications have always had a mix of both subscriptions and newsstand sales. Pay per article is just a more granular version of that. Unfortunately I can't afford all the different publications that might have an interesting article from time to time, but it seems like it would be their loss if they completely paywalled everything off. Maybe something more like gym memberships would work where you could purchase say a 10-article "punchcard" or a subscription.
      - mattkrause 9y ago
        It might be too granular. One of the things I like about print magazines (and newspapers) is the serendipity--you read something that wouldn't normally grab your attention because it's on the next page and...you've already paid for it, after all. Paying per article seems like it would push people only to read things that they're sure they'll enjoy (based on the author, title, etc).
        js2 9y ago
        True, but I already have more than I can read. You could always let readers make the decision to pay after reading, with maybe a reasonable limit.

As much as I can't stand it either, Trump is the president of the US, and making a lot of waves. It's not surprising that he is dominating the news, and it's not just "political blather".

Xcelerate 9y ago

It has nothing to do with Trump in particular — it's that they pick a topic and just drive it into the ground with the same news rehashed in eight different ways.

ShannonAlther 9y ago
The problem is that every third sentence out of the president's mouth is so disconnected from reality that it boggles the mind. If Obama, Bush, or Clinton had said even a few of the things that Trump has it would have made headlines for weeks. Every last drop of it is newsworthy, but in all it's become a flood.
- rifung 9y ago
  While I don't disagree, at this point it's not news that the President says things which are not based in reality. I'd rather they just publish a piece every month to gather them up for those interested and publish more articles focused on what he actually did than what he said because frankly he doesn't really follow through on what he says anyway. If anything I feel like the focus on what he says is just distracting people from the more important news which is what he's doing.
hackuser 9y ago
Could you provide an example? That's not my experience, but maybe we are looking at different parts of the site.

js2 9y ago

The Economist provides a pretty good mix. I subscribe to it, the NYT, and the New Yorker. I probably won't renew my NYT subscription as I find myself reading it much less often since I picked up The Economist subscription. What I'd really like though is to support one or two major publications and then have a slush fund where I could pay per article to other sources. I don't know... does HN have enough readership where it could collect funds and redistribute? It's my primary source of reading random material.

fovc 9y ago
Check out Blendle.com. I haven't used them much recently, but I enjoyed paying for quality journalism per article. There is (or was) an HN sign up promo somewhere
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  I don't think this for-article model is a good one. It turns journalism into piecework, and while there's the opportunity to strike gold and get lucky with a particularly timely or well-received piece, it also tends to prioritize quantity over quality because the former yields more predictable rewards.
  - js2 9y ago
    Hmmm. Publications have always had a mix of both subscriptions and newsstand sales. Pay per article is just a more granular version of that. Unfortunately I can't afford all the different publications that might have an interesting article from time to time, but it seems like it would be their loss if they completely paywalled everything off. Maybe something more like gym memberships would work where you could purchase say a 10-article "punchcard" or a subscription.
    - mattkrause 9y ago
      It might be too granular. One of the things I like about print magazines (and newspapers) is the serendipity--you read something that wouldn't normally grab your attention because it's on the next page and...you've already paid for it, after all. Paying per article seems like it would push people only to read things that they're sure they'll enjoy (based on the author, title, etc).
      - js2 9y ago
        True, but I already have more than I can read. You could always let readers make the decision to pay after reading, with maybe a reasonable limit.