4 ms·

The problem with (some) paywalls is that they also advertise. Either advertise and make it free, or have a paywall subscription model. I get it that news isn'

The problem with (some) paywalls is that they also advertise. Either advertise and make it free, or have a paywall subscription model. I get it that news isn't free. What is strange about the struggle is that in the 21st century a big news organization can have a bigger subscriber base than ever before. So why don't they? What is broken?

TallGuyShort 7y ago
What's broken is what you said in your first statement: even if I pay, they tend to also advertise. I also used to pay for a number of local / regional newspapers, but me paying them didn't get me quality journalism in a single transaction, it just got me better access to click-bait a lot of the time, and I got to feel good that maybe I was kinda supporting good press. (I also had a big problem with the fact that despite only wanting a digital subscription, I still got paper copies at my house, but because I wasn't supposed to, I had no way to stop it when I left town and I was stuck with a dozen papers on my driveway when I returned - nice and safe for me. I had to resort to borderline illegal harassing behavior to get them to stop.) There are high quality publications that I think do consistently do the original research and due diligence behind their reporting, but they're mostly just not of interest to me anymore because they're national. I'm overloaded with political stuff in my face from other sources anyway - I'm happier just not reading good commentary on it in my spare time. I find BBC is a good source of world news, but they never ask me for money..
- smacktoward 7y ago
  > I find BBC is a good source of world news, but they never ask me for money.. Because they get their funding by the taxpayers of the United Kingdom, who quite generously allow the rest of us to benefit from the product they paid for. But if we're advocating state-sponsored media, remember that in that field the BBC's commitment to real journalism makes it kind of an outlier. Most state-sponsored media outlets are just propaganda mills for the regime that sponsors them.
smacktoward 7y ago
> Either advertise and make it free, or have a paywall subscription model. I don't understand this fundamentalism. Newspapers and magazines that charged subscription fees have also carried advertising for literally the entire modern history of newspapers and magazines. Why is it suddenly a Fundamental Rule that they can only do one or the other? Who made that decision?
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  Web advertising is evil. If I'm paying someone, I won't accept they imposing it to me. Print advertising is merely annoying, and only to the extent that it's numerous. A bit of advertising in a printed media is even funny. As long as web advertisers don't stop being evil, both situations will keep being different.
  - chc 7y ago
    This is circular reasoning. You essentially answered the question "Why is it OK in one context and not in another?" with "Because it's OK in one context and not in the other." To break the circle: Why is web advertising categorically evil when print advertising isn't?
    - JohnFen 7y ago
      My answer to that question is simple: print advertising doesn't spy on me. Online advertising does.
marcosdumay 7y ago
Keep in mind that news was (almost worldwide) already in a downtrend before the web. It's more due to low quality content and lack of differentiation by distributing the same low quality text brought from a 3rd party that everybody else. I see some media working to recover their image nowadays, but low quality is still the norm.

TallGuyShort 7y ago

What's broken is what you said in your first statement: even if I pay, they tend to also advertise. I also used to pay for a number of local / regional newspapers, but me paying them didn't get me quality journalism in a single transaction, it just got me better access to click-bait a lot of the time, and I got to feel good that maybe I was kinda supporting good press. (I also had a big problem with the fact that despite only wanting a digital subscription, I still got paper copies at my house, but because I wasn't supposed to, I had no way to stop it when I left town and I was stuck with a dozen papers on my driveway when I returned - nice and safe for me. I had to resort to borderline illegal harassing behavior to get them to stop.) There are high quality publications that I think do consistently do the original research and due diligence behind their reporting, but they're mostly just not of interest to me anymore because they're national. I'm overloaded with political stuff in my face from other sources anyway - I'm happier just not reading good commentary on it in my spare time. I find BBC is a good source of world news, but they never ask me for money..

smacktoward 7y ago
> I find BBC is a good source of world news, but they never ask me for money.. Because they get their funding by the taxpayers of the United Kingdom, who quite generously allow the rest of us to benefit from the product they paid for. But if we're advocating state-sponsored media, remember that in that field the BBC's commitment to real journalism makes it kind of an outlier. Most state-sponsored media outlets are just propaganda mills for the regime that sponsors them.

smacktoward 7y ago

> Either advertise and make it free, or have a paywall subscription model. I don't understand this fundamentalism. Newspapers and magazines that charged subscription fees have also carried advertising for literally the entire modern history of newspapers and magazines. Why is it suddenly a Fundamental Rule that they can only do one or the other? Who made that decision?

marcosdumay 7y ago
Web advertising is evil. If I'm paying someone, I won't accept they imposing it to me. Print advertising is merely annoying, and only to the extent that it's numerous. A bit of advertising in a printed media is even funny. As long as web advertisers don't stop being evil, both situations will keep being different.
- chc 7y ago
  This is circular reasoning. You essentially answered the question "Why is it OK in one context and not in another?" with "Because it's OK in one context and not in the other." To break the circle: Why is web advertising categorically evil when print advertising isn't?
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    My answer to that question is simple: print advertising doesn't spy on me. Online advertising does.

marcosdumay 7y ago

Keep in mind that news was (almost worldwide) already in a downtrend before the web. It's more due to low quality content and lack of differentiation by distributing the same low quality text brought from a 3rd party that everybody else. I see some media working to recover their image nowadays, but low quality is still the norm.