4 ms·
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.
by 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 agoWhich 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 agoIt 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 agoThough 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 agoThe 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.