4 ms·
The thing about paid news is that they're offering a "premium" product, but that product has notable omissions. You know what I'd expect from news that you hav
by cxr 6y ago
The thing about paid news is that they're offering a "premium" product, but that product has notable omissions. You know what I'd expect from news that you have to pay for? A bibliography. Something like (an idealized version of) Wikipedia, with a list of references included somewhere, each scoped to a particular claim—even if a reference just amounts to original research conducted by the news org. E.g. Interview with Terrance Bodwell, 2020 May 17.
It's almost like the raw deal you get with most commercial software. Consider the case where you have some open source thing that tends to be both free (as in price) and you get the source code to it. Now, someone is offering a premium alternative. What do you get for you money? In most cases, you actually have to give up on being able to look at the source.
- na85 6y agoNot to mention they still show me ads if I pay, which means I'm now paying them for the privilege of having ads I don't want shoved into my face and paying for the privilege of being tracked. No thanks.
- egonschiele 6y agoYou do understand that the news is one of the lowest profit industries, right? They showing you those ads just so they can stay afloat -- not so they can all buy yachts.
- na85 6y agoWhat does that matter? Advertising is repugnant. It's not my responsibility to support their unprofitable business model.
- egonschiele 6y agoRight, but what I'm saying is this is the best choice we have right now. You are trying to choose a fantasy choice that does not exist. You current choices are: 1. Let the news die. 2. Pay for the news, suck up the fact that it has advertising. 3. Don't pay for the news and hope the rest of us pay for it so it doesn't die. Your "option 4: news without advertising" does not exist. It may in the future, but only if ENOUGH OF US PAY FOR A SUBSCRIPTION SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO RELY ON ADVERTISING.
- na85 6y agoI choose option 1 of course. That is objectively the best choice. The news orgs that will survive are the ones that secure arm's length public funding such as NPR, CBC, BBC, et al. If Fox or CNN goes bankrupt nothing of value will be lost.
- 0goel0 6y agoYou are mistaken and are myopic. Fox or CNN are not the ones at stake here. The local newsroom that do the important work of disseminating disaster information, local election information are what's at stake. 40-some millions US residents still don't have reliable or fast Internet. Millions don't have any Internet at all. How do you expect to keep up with their own community and the world?
- egonschiele 6y agoTo be fair, he didn't say Fox or CNN were at stake.
- na85 6y agoI'm having trouble following your logic. You're suggesting that because I'm not willing to pay for $big_name_newscorp, that somehow this will cause local newsrooms (that I would not be subscribing to anyways) to go bankrupt? And also that I somehow bear moral responsibility to keep these newsrooms afloat?
- ulucs 6y agoThere will be no equilibrium without ads if you are okay with paying even with ads.
- egonschiele 6y agoSo how do you suggest getting to that equilibrium?
- sukilot 6y agoYou can and should block the ads and trackers.
- egonschiele 6y agoSo your argument is, since it's not exactly what you want, you aren't going to pay for it.
- cxr 6y agoIf you have to resort to putting words in someone's mouth, it's a decent hint that either your position is weak or your understanding of their position is. To answer your question: no, that's not my argument.
- egonschiele 6y agoIn that case I'm sorry -- what IS your argument? It wasn't clear to me from your original comment.
- cercatrova 6y agoWell, yes. Even as the parent poster says that this isn't their argument, let us assume it is. Why would I pay for something if it doesn't fit my needs? I don't see other merchants think they're entitled to my sale.
- egonschiele 6y agoSo just to be clear, the choices on the table are, 1. Let the news die. 2. Pay for the news, suck up the fact that it isn't exactly what you want it to be. 3. Don't pay for the news and hope the rest of us pay for it so it doesn't die. If you see another choice please let me know.
- cercatrova 6y agoI'd pick 1. I don't believe news is some sacred service that must exist. Of course, if it were, the government could provide it, but it might cause issues with independence of state and the people, depending on the type of government. So, it's a service based on the free market, thus it must compete on the free market, no? It seems like you believe that news is sacred, so your conclusions will differ from mine as we draw from different axiomatic beliefs. If that's the case, we won't be able to convince each other.