3 ms·
And IMO it's gotta much worse since Crichton said that do to online style publishing encouraging newspapers to be even looser with fact checkers and always tryi
by the-pigeon 6y ago
And IMO it's gotta much worse since Crichton said that do to online style publishing encouraging newspapers to be even looser with fact checkers and always trying to publish things ASAP over trying to publish something that is interesting, informative and/or factually corrective.
- ghaff 6y agoSome of it is rush to publish. But it's also that most readers here and elsewhere won't pay for subscriptions and will also do their best to avoid even the mediocre monetization provided by digital advertising. It's hard to support investigative reporting and fact checkers.
- CamperBob2 6y agoIt's hard to support investigative reporting and fact checkers. When the bad drives out the good, it's no surprise that no one wants to pay for the bad.
- ghaff 6y agoI think you have cause and effect reversed.
- CamperBob2 6y agoAnd I think you do. Where does that leave us? The fact is, nobody has offered me access to a news source that covers all topics of possible interest in a manner that's free from overt biases (or poorly-hidden ones) and intelligence-insulting "both sides" fallacies. Bloomberg certainly doesn't qualify. If such a service is ever offered, I don't expect it to be cheap, much less free... but rest assured I'll listen to their pitch. I'm sure I'm not the only potential customer for a high-end premium news product that I can actually trust.