4 ms·

I agree, and earlier this year I decided to subscribe to a newspaper for the first time in many, many years. I'm worried that subscribers can't stop the propaga

I agree, and earlier this year I decided to subscribe to a newspaper for the first time in many, many years. I'm worried that subscribers can't stop the propaganda though. There are so many 'news' sources nowadays, with broad national and international reach, that individuals can't possibly support all of the 'good' ones. At best they can subscribe to one or two. So all of the good sources have to compete for limited subscribers, while the bad ones are happy to give their propaganda away for free. That lets the propaganda sources flourish and multiply, until there are far more of them. They're also better at playing the attention-grabbing game, because they have none of the self-imposed limitations that the good news sources have.

exelius 9y ago
If you change the way that you consume news, this is less of a problem. Stop visiting the aggregators like Google News. Stop believing anything you read on Facebook that is not from a publication that you consider reputable. There will always be people who are easily influenced because they refuse to take the time to understand the provenance of the information they consume. This has always been true. But if you truly consider yourself "an independent thinker" (which is why so many Americans claim to be "independents") you have to consider the trustworthiness of the outlets feeding you information. You can't outsource that decision making to anyone else like Google or Facebook.
comex 9y ago
The problem with a subscription model, at least the straightforward one that newspapers use today, is that it encourages political echo chambers. If someone mainly reads, say, the New York Times (which I do), and tends to agree with Times editorials, they'd probably benefit from also reading the WSJ on occasion (both the news and the opinion section), if only to understand the "other side"'s point of view. But people already have a strong cognitive bias towards consuming media they agree with, rather than media that challenges their beliefs and makes them uncomfortable. So it'd be hard enough to attract such a person to the WSJ if it were free. Ask them to fork over hundreds of dollars, and only those with the greatest desire for neutrality (or just a ton of money to spare) will accept. In my ideal world, I'd be able to pay for one subscription that gives me access to all the professional news outlets, and they'd split the fee based on how much time I spent reading articles on each site. (Time, not clicks, to avoid creating an incentive for clickbait headlines.) Or maybe some sort of micropayments system that's a similar idea but for the whole Web. But I don't see either happening anytime soon...
- DougWebb 9y ago
  You have an interesting point of view on political echo chambers. Today's rhetoric is that the NYT and WSJ are both "MSM" and therefore on the same side with the same point of view. You'd have to watch (not read) Fox, Russia Today, One America News, Breitbart, etc to get the other other side. What's really disheartening is that this isn't just a problem with the American people; our president also falls into the trap of only consuming media he agrees with, and regurgitating it without challenge, consideration, or counterpoint to offset the source's bias. There's no easy solution for this; even if Trump leaves early his supporters and the system that got him elected will still be there to put someone like him (biased and manipulable) back into power.

exelius 9y ago

If you change the way that you consume news, this is less of a problem. Stop visiting the aggregators like Google News. Stop believing anything you read on Facebook that is not from a publication that you consider reputable. There will always be people who are easily influenced because they refuse to take the time to understand the provenance of the information they consume. This has always been true. But if you truly consider yourself "an independent thinker" (which is why so many Americans claim to be "independents") you have to consider the trustworthiness of the outlets feeding you information. You can't outsource that decision making to anyone else like Google or Facebook.

comex 9y ago

The problem with a subscription model, at least the straightforward one that newspapers use today, is that it encourages political echo chambers. If someone mainly reads, say, the New York Times (which I do), and tends to agree with Times editorials, they'd probably benefit from also reading the WSJ on occasion (both the news and the opinion section), if only to understand the "other side"'s point of view. But people already have a strong cognitive bias towards consuming media they agree with, rather than media that challenges their beliefs and makes them uncomfortable. So it'd be hard enough to attract such a person to the WSJ if it were free. Ask them to fork over hundreds of dollars, and only those with the greatest desire for neutrality (or just a ton of money to spare) will accept. In my ideal world, I'd be able to pay for one subscription that gives me access to all the professional news outlets, and they'd split the fee based on how much time I spent reading articles on each site. (Time, not clicks, to avoid creating an incentive for clickbait headlines.) Or maybe some sort of micropayments system that's a similar idea but for the whole Web. But I don't see either happening anytime soon...

DougWebb 9y ago
You have an interesting point of view on political echo chambers. Today's rhetoric is that the NYT and WSJ are both "MSM" and therefore on the same side with the same point of view. You'd have to watch (not read) Fox, Russia Today, One America News, Breitbart, etc to get the other other side. What's really disheartening is that this isn't just a problem with the American people; our president also falls into the trap of only consuming media he agrees with, and regurgitating it without challenge, consideration, or counterpoint to offset the source's bias. There's no easy solution for this; even if Trump leaves early his supporters and the system that got him elected will still be there to put someone like him (biased and manipulable) back into power.