3 ms·

The internet has decimated most newspaper revenue in the USA and has seen massive newsroom closures over the past decade. Only large entities like the NYT and W

The internet has decimated most newspaper revenue in the USA and has seen massive newsroom closures over the past decade. Only large entities like the NYT and WaPo etc really have the pockets to do expensive in depth reporting. Also trust is low because one political party in the USA has made it it's mantra for decades now to deride any news that is critical of it as "fake news" and a "liberal bias", so that doesn't help the situation.

paulgb 5y ago
It's interesting how willing folks in tech are to say “if you're not paying, you're the product” when it comes to apps or social networks, but then turn around and sneer at news paywalls. If you're not willing to pony up a few bucks for subscriptions, of course you'll get sensationalized and click-driven news, that's the business model you voted for with your wallet. (I'll plug ProPublica, though. They do good work as a non-profit, including a series on TurboTax that has put political heat on the company's practices)
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  I payed my favorite newspaper and they still didn't write what I like. Fun aside, I think you are correct. The net inflated the value of articles and similar to art, quality didn't necessarily translate to value. Although I don't think that tech people were particularly stingy in paying writers.
  - res0nat0r 5y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28785366 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28785366 seems relevant right now too...
- pessimizer 5y ago
  Many of the things I read are repulsive, and I wish I could take away money from the people who published them. A huge amount of it is also time-wasting linkbait that doesn't follow up on the promise of its headline, and I wish I could make them pay me for having read it. I pay for news I want other people to read, not for things that I read. I read tons of scientifically illiterate, deliberately deceptive right-wing dogshit. It's worth reading, because I want to be familiar with the arguments of bad people, but I certainly don't want to economically support them.
  - paulgb 5y ago
    > I pay for news I want other people to read, not for things that I read. I read tons of scientifically illiterate, deliberately deceptive right-wing dogshit. It's worth reading, because I want to be familiar with the arguments of bad people, but I certainly don't want to economically support them. This is a good point, and basically what got me to switch my WSJ subscription (I disagree with their editorial stance but respect their newsroom) to a recurring ProPublica donation. One too many WSJ op-eds that I didn't want to financially support.

paulgb 5y ago

It's interesting how willing folks in tech are to say “if you're not paying, you're the product” when it comes to apps or social networks, but then turn around and sneer at news paywalls. If you're not willing to pony up a few bucks for subscriptions, of course you'll get sensationalized and click-driven news, that's the business model you voted for with your wallet. (I'll plug ProPublica, though. They do good work as a non-profit, including a series on TurboTax that has put political heat on the company's practices)

raxxorrax 5y ago
I payed my favorite newspaper and they still didn't write what I like. Fun aside, I think you are correct. The net inflated the value of articles and similar to art, quality didn't necessarily translate to value. Although I don't think that tech people were particularly stingy in paying writers.
- res0nat0r 5y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28785366 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28785366 seems relevant right now too...
pessimizer 5y ago
Many of the things I read are repulsive, and I wish I could take away money from the people who published them. A huge amount of it is also time-wasting linkbait that doesn't follow up on the promise of its headline, and I wish I could make them pay me for having read it. I pay for news I want other people to read, not for things that I read. I read tons of scientifically illiterate, deliberately deceptive right-wing dogshit. It's worth reading, because I want to be familiar with the arguments of bad people, but I certainly don't want to economically support them.
- paulgb 5y ago
  > I pay for news I want other people to read, not for things that I read. I read tons of scientifically illiterate, deliberately deceptive right-wing dogshit. It's worth reading, because I want to be familiar with the arguments of bad people, but I certainly don't want to economically support them. This is a good point, and basically what got me to switch my WSJ subscription (I disagree with their editorial stance but respect their newsroom) to a recurring ProPublica donation. One too many WSJ op-eds that I didn't want to financially support.