4 ms·

There probably is a future for high quality reporting like the FT, WaPo. I’m probably more of a contrarian in that I think it’s no bad thing if ‘viewspapers’ w

There probably is a future for high quality reporting like the FT, WaPo. I’m probably more of a contrarian in that I think it’s no bad thing if ‘viewspapers’ which exist to make people mad, make false equivalencies and write ‘People are saying’ type stories go to the wall. It turns out the direct link between a paying customer and the provider of news is actually an important one and that once you sever that link and treat the reader as ‘eyeballs’ the quality does suffer.

ALittleLight 8y ago
I think the negative news is the only kind that will survive the digital era because it scales well. Not that many people care about local news, and so that will die out because it can't reach more than a small number of people.
- kristianc 8y ago
  The likes of the FT/Economist etc seems to scale well because it has an engaged audience that is used to paying for it and sees the value in paying fOr news.
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    Which is fine, provided you are in the socio-economic group of people who don't have to worry about whether or not the local mayor is ripping you off. Or perhaps the city council is planning to put a halfway house on your block. Etc etc etc. WaPo or FT are just not going to cover local issues like they need to be covered to keep an informed electorate.
    - kristianc 8y ago
      It might be that local papers are a bad fit for online, but I've never seen them as directly competing with national news anyway. The paper versions of my local certainly seem okay, and there's a lack of clickbait junk in them. The online version on the other hand is a real crapshoot.
  - cm2187 8y ago
    Though both the FT and the Economist have moved from being a neutral, factual, solid source of news and analysis to become politically militant. That seems to have worked well for them in term of subscriptions but I no longer consider them as quality news.
    - ploika 8y ago
      The Economist was never neutral. It was set up in response to the Corn Laws in the 19th Century Britain and has been very upfront about its ideological standpoint ever since. It's one of the things I like about it. I do believe it's solid and factual though. If you treat every article is an opinion and analysis piece rather than neutral news reporting (because that's what they are), then it's quite a pleasant and informative read.

ALittleLight 8y ago

I think the negative news is the only kind that will survive the digital era because it scales well. Not that many people care about local news, and so that will die out because it can't reach more than a small number of people.

kristianc 8y ago
The likes of the FT/Economist etc seems to scale well because it has an engaged audience that is used to paying for it and sees the value in paying fOr news.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  Which is fine, provided you are in the socio-economic group of people who don't have to worry about whether or not the local mayor is ripping you off. Or perhaps the city council is planning to put a halfway house on your block. Etc etc etc. WaPo or FT are just not going to cover local issues like they need to be covered to keep an informed electorate.
  - kristianc 8y ago
    It might be that local papers are a bad fit for online, but I've never seen them as directly competing with national news anyway. The paper versions of my local certainly seem okay, and there's a lack of clickbait junk in them. The online version on the other hand is a real crapshoot.
- cm2187 8y ago
  Though both the FT and the Economist have moved from being a neutral, factual, solid source of news and analysis to become politically militant. That seems to have worked well for them in term of subscriptions but I no longer consider them as quality news.
  - ploika 8y ago
    The Economist was never neutral. It was set up in response to the Corn Laws in the 19th Century Britain and has been very upfront about its ideological standpoint ever since. It's one of the things I like about it. I do believe it's solid and factual though. If you treat every article is an opinion and analysis piece rather than neutral news reporting (because that's what they are), then it's quite a pleasant and informative read.