3 ms·

If more people paid for journalism, sites like The Guardian’s wouldn’t have to have those banners. To turn it around: what journalism have you paid for recentl

by muglug 7y ago

If more people paid for journalism, sites like The Guardian’s wouldn’t have to have those banners. To turn it around: what journalism have you paid for recently?

jordanpg 7y ago
I do not agree that it is my responsibility to help fix The Guardian's business model. Maybe the presence of these banners says something important about the value of the content (in this context) and the respect that the organization has for its readers.
giarc 7y ago
I feel like many people are ok with ad supported media, but when you can no longer see the content from all the ads, it gets a bit much.
Pigo 7y ago
I actually am willing to pay for journalism, but it becomes a constant research project to find out what source isn't on a biased agenda crusade. Any recommendations on pure journalism source I should check out?
- muglug 7y ago
  There has never been such a thing as "bias-free" journalism. We all have biases, and so do journalists and their editors. If you're willing to pay for journalism, find a newspaper – any newspaper – and buy a subscription. I assume from your posts that you're in America, and politically right-of-centre. What about the Wall Street Journal? It broke the Theranos story and many others, and employs a raft of very good journalists doing important work.
  - Pigo 7y ago
    The wsj does seem to not cater as much to opinion pieces or clickbait titles. I guess that's what I was asking. I get plenty of opinions and editorials for free these days, I don't want to pay for that even if I agree with them. I miss the outlets that seemed to focus on straight up news. We had a local paper in my area, The Western Star, that ran for 206 years. It was the last source that I was really dedicated to, because I cared a lot more about local. RIP Western Star https://ohiomemory.org/digital/collection/p16007coll84 https://ohiomemory.org/digital/collection/p16007coll84
    - muglug 7y ago
      Remember that for a paper like the WSJ or New York Times, opinions/editorials consume a tiny fraction of the budget: an editorial on Theranos might cost the newspaper $500, but the series of articles that eventually led to the downfall of the Theranos might easily cost 100 times that.
ravenstine 7y ago
Yet we can't all be buying subscriptions for every single online newspaper and magazine(on top of all the streaming services) just to read the occasional article. That just encourages quantity over consistent quality. There was a day where, if we wanted to read an edition of a newspaper or a magazine, we would pay a dime or a quarter to receive a copy. We could do essentially the same thing on the internet, but for some reason everyone huffs and puffs and insists that it wouldn't work. Yet it hasn't truly been tried. I would certainly "insert" a quarter to receive a day-pass in order to read something I'm interested in. Just give me the option. For the people who don't want to pay, they can choose to view ads and annoying modals.

by muglug 7y ago

If more people paid for journalism, sites like The Guardian’s wouldn’t have to have those banners. To turn it around: what journalism have you paid for recently?

jordanpg 7y ago

I do not agree that it is my responsibility to help fix The Guardian's business model. Maybe the presence of these banners says something important about the value of the content (in this context) and the respect that the organization has for its readers.

giarc 7y ago

I feel like many people are ok with ad supported media, but when you can no longer see the content from all the ads, it gets a bit much.

Pigo 7y ago

I actually am willing to pay for journalism, but it becomes a constant research project to find out what source isn't on a biased agenda crusade. Any recommendations on pure journalism source I should check out?

muglug 7y ago
There has never been such a thing as "bias-free" journalism. We all have biases, and so do journalists and their editors. If you're willing to pay for journalism, find a newspaper – any newspaper – and buy a subscription. I assume from your posts that you're in America, and politically right-of-centre. What about the Wall Street Journal? It broke the Theranos story and many others, and employs a raft of very good journalists doing important work.
- Pigo 7y ago
  The wsj does seem to not cater as much to opinion pieces or clickbait titles. I guess that's what I was asking. I get plenty of opinions and editorials for free these days, I don't want to pay for that even if I agree with them. I miss the outlets that seemed to focus on straight up news. We had a local paper in my area, The Western Star, that ran for 206 years. It was the last source that I was really dedicated to, because I cared a lot more about local. RIP Western Star https://ohiomemory.org/digital/collection/p16007coll84 https://ohiomemory.org/digital/collection/p16007coll84
  - muglug 7y ago
    Remember that for a paper like the WSJ or New York Times, opinions/editorials consume a tiny fraction of the budget: an editorial on Theranos might cost the newspaper $500, but the series of articles that eventually led to the downfall of the Theranos might easily cost 100 times that.

ravenstine 7y ago

Yet we can't all be buying subscriptions for every single online newspaper and magazine(on top of all the streaming services) just to read the occasional article. That just encourages quantity over consistent quality. There was a day where, if we wanted to read an edition of a newspaper or a magazine, we would pay a dime or a quarter to receive a copy. We could do essentially the same thing on the internet, but for some reason everyone huffs and puffs and insists that it wouldn't work. Yet it hasn't truly been tried. I would certainly "insert" a quarter to receive a day-pass in order to read something I'm interested in. Just give me the option. For the people who don't want to pay, they can choose to view ads and annoying modals.