6 ms·

I have online/digital subscriptions for the New York Times ($48/year) the Washington Post ($19/year) and The Guardian (€60/year). Totally worth it for me.

huffmsa 8y ago
Do you feel your money was well spent on the guardian's fabrication about Manafort visiting Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy?
- jwildeboer 8y ago
  Or the NYT posting opeds full of unchecked lies? Journalists and editors will make mistakes. The question is not about that one story, it’s about the sum of what it delivers IMHO. And in that regard The Guardian still wins my support.
  - huffmsa 8y ago
    Just ribbing you btw. Serious question, would you prefer being able to support quality reporters / reporting at these publications and not pay for the lies and fabrications? If you could do that (versus having to pay an all encompassing subscription).
    - jwildeboer 8y ago
      No. I wouldn't want to directly support certain journalists. It creates the real problem of "writing to please your audience" and moving the focus from reporting to serving the patrons. The best journalists are not necessarily nice people, in my experience. They should focus on the story, not waste time on optimising their social reputation. They should be protected by their editors and the institution they work for from exactly this kind of influence. IMHO. Also it is hard to go undercover for an important story when you have to make sure you grow your audience at the same time.
      - huffmsa 8y ago
        Fair. But you and I would pay for "not nice, but brutally honest journalism". I bet a lot of other would too. Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" is historical proof of that. There's no reason a the authors couldn't write under pseudonyms, or publish as a collective. You still buy the articles one by one as you see fit.
        pjc50 8y ago
        Very difficult to maintain a pseudonym and publish articles with quotes from named sources in, avoiding the Manafort fiasco. The Economist manages the collective byline thing fairly well, but it's almost unique.

huffmsa 8y ago

Do you feel your money was well spent on the guardian's fabrication about Manafort visiting Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy?

jwildeboer 8y ago
Or the NYT posting opeds full of unchecked lies? Journalists and editors will make mistakes. The question is not about that one story, it’s about the sum of what it delivers IMHO. And in that regard The Guardian still wins my support.
- huffmsa 8y ago
  Just ribbing you btw. Serious question, would you prefer being able to support quality reporters / reporting at these publications and not pay for the lies and fabrications? If you could do that (versus having to pay an all encompassing subscription).
  - jwildeboer 8y ago
    No. I wouldn't want to directly support certain journalists. It creates the real problem of "writing to please your audience" and moving the focus from reporting to serving the patrons. The best journalists are not necessarily nice people, in my experience. They should focus on the story, not waste time on optimising their social reputation. They should be protected by their editors and the institution they work for from exactly this kind of influence. IMHO. Also it is hard to go undercover for an important story when you have to make sure you grow your audience at the same time.
    - huffmsa 8y ago
      Fair. But you and I would pay for "not nice, but brutally honest journalism". I bet a lot of other would too. Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" is historical proof of that. There's no reason a the authors couldn't write under pseudonyms, or publish as a collective. You still buy the articles one by one as you see fit.
      - pjc50 8y ago
        Very difficult to maintain a pseudonym and publish articles with quotes from named sources in, avoiding the Manafort fiasco. The Economist manages the collective byline thing fairly well, but it's almost unique.