7 ms·

I have long said the problem with paying for news is that it is rarely worth paying for. When I was in grad school there was a program that gave us "free" copie

I have long said the problem with paying for news is that it is rarely worth paying for. When I was in grad school there was a program that gave us "free" copies of the NYTimes and USA Today (I'm sure part of our tuition paid for it but all we had to do was swipe our student id to open the newspaper box). I would get them every day and there were rarely more than one story in them that I would actually read.

bluedays 5y ago
Sounds like a product designed to accommodate a wide set of interests for a diverse group of people. Are you sure you’re not just boring?
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  often things that are wide are not thought of as deep, and that there must be more misses than hits in a wide approach, those factors being taken into account I don't understand the assumption that one is boring because only hit a few times and not affected deeply with an approach designed to achieve exactly that effect.
KarlKemp 5y ago
It's the rare product where it's good for you even when others consume it. Sort-of like a vaccine, but for democracy.
- harles 5y ago
  Unless it’s more of a horse dewormer for democracy, which I fear a lot of media is headed towards.
  - KarlKemp 5y ago
    The cynicism "the media" gets is entirely boring and mostly wrong. If you read one of WSJ/NYT/WashPo and never get near youtube, you will be well informed. But the actual problem with your statement is that it implies some alternative to "the media", and/or that it's said as if the world without the news media is somehow similar to the one we currently life in. There isn't and it wouldn't: a democracy is a regulatory system that needs the feedback loop just like your AC needs to get measurements from a thermometer to adjust its settings. Take out that part, and democracy is done for.
    - harles 5y ago
      Even among previously respected outlets, there’s a trend towards more clickbait style stories. It feels like a response to losing ad revenue to social media and search which is unfortunate. Things like The Wirecutter have definitely lessened the whole outlet to me.
reaperducer 5y ago
I would get them every day and there were rarely more than one story in them that I would actually read. Maybe the problem wasn't the paper. The New York Times' target audience isn't grad students. I don't think it's all that surprising that you weren't all that interested in it. As we get older, we change. We learn more. We become interested in more things. Depending on how long it's been since grad school, you may be interested in what's in the Times now. I know that I don't like the same thing I did back in grad school. I certainly know that I'm interested in more things than I was then. When I was in grad school, I couldn't stand the taste of tapioca. Now, I love it.
- kaesar14 5y ago
  The New York Times target audience isn’t a highly educated young American? Maybe that’s the problem, as pointed out?
  - anonAndOn 5y ago
    > young No. Middle-career and beyond because you probably can't afford tickets to the Met gala if you're <35.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - ribosometronome 5y ago
      Those are $35,000. I suspect they hope to have a broader audience than folk who regularly drop 35k on a single night's event.
      - hellbannedguy 5y ago
        I had no idea it was that expensive. I will never understand the way certain people spend money. I could buy a toolbox filled with Snap-on tools for one night of cringing. There is a politician who's ruining the democratic party that was at that event.
threatofrain 5y ago
1. News isn't worth paying for when the race-to-the-bottom has already occurred. How do you persuade people to buy things which are basically free and can be viewed even without ads? 2. For many events, it's not the writing I care about but the information. IMO Google realizes the difference and bets on information over writing, whereas NYT still wants to sell writing. All publications which are trying to stop Google from scraping their information are basically insisting that their copyrightable storytelling is being ruined by Google's information extraction. 3. For general news, I often don't know what I want to know. This is where news aggregation is way better than individual outlets, at least most of the time, with exceptions going to specific domains like food or games. If WION gets the exclusive interview, then WION is where I want to go and everyone else is just re-reporting. News aggregation also allows you to take in a sense of inter-rater reliability on a per-story level. But this is all playing into Google's strengths. Given this, I don't understand people saying this or that outlet sucks; for example, does Buzzfeed News suck? Just the name alone makes it sound like celebrity news gossip. But then once and awhile Buzzfeed News gets an exclusive interview (such as on Palantir matters), and guess what, I want them to show up on my aggregators.
jdavis703 5y ago
USA Today is deliberately written at a 10th grade reading level, so it’s doubtful how relevant it is for university students. But if you found only one relevant article in the NY Times then either you were consuming radio/TV news, or just don’t care about current events. Which is fine, it just means you weren’t the target audience.
- jart 5y ago
  Is there a higher reading level than tenth grade? What's the point in using plain language if you're not going to speak plainly when you can switch to a programming language or math?
  - jdavis703 5y ago
    Yes, if I’m reading an English-language paper I want them to use the proper language. Don’t explain to me what “budget reconciliation” is, just write “budget reconciliation.” On the off chance there’s a word or phrase I don’t know, I can look it up.
    - throwaway_e66m 5y ago
      Wouldn't the same apply to e.g. the New York Times [1] and the Washington Post [2], etc.? I find any article with "explainer" in the title to be extremely condescending; it seems to me that no newspaper has a monopoly on dumbing down topics. [1] From https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/27/us/politics/us-debt-ceiling.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/27/us/politics/us-debt-ceili...: > All of this drama raises the question of what the debt limit really is... > > What is the debt limit? > > The debt limit is a cap on the total amount of money that the federal government is authorized to borrow to fulfill its financial obligations. [2] From https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/09/18/everything-you-need-to-know-about-why-the-government-might-shut-down/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/09/18/every...: > What's a continuing resolution? > > It's a bill that tells the federal government's agencies, “Keep on spending like you've been spending till we can actually come to some agreement on how much you should be spending.”
- 5y ago
AniseAbyss 5y ago
I suppose it is to be expected from this site that there is more respect for tech douchebags sitting in their climate controlled offices than journalists risking their lives in warzones.

bluedays 5y ago

Sounds like a product designed to accommodate a wide set of interests for a diverse group of people. Are you sure you’re not just boring?

bryanrasmussen 5y ago
often things that are wide are not thought of as deep, and that there must be more misses than hits in a wide approach, those factors being taken into account I don't understand the assumption that one is boring because only hit a few times and not affected deeply with an approach designed to achieve exactly that effect.

KarlKemp 5y ago

It's the rare product where it's good for you even when others consume it. Sort-of like a vaccine, but for democracy.

harles 5y ago
Unless it’s more of a horse dewormer for democracy, which I fear a lot of media is headed towards.
- KarlKemp 5y ago
  The cynicism "the media" gets is entirely boring and mostly wrong. If you read one of WSJ/NYT/WashPo and never get near youtube, you will be well informed. But the actual problem with your statement is that it implies some alternative to "the media", and/or that it's said as if the world without the news media is somehow similar to the one we currently life in. There isn't and it wouldn't: a democracy is a regulatory system that needs the feedback loop just like your AC needs to get measurements from a thermometer to adjust its settings. Take out that part, and democracy is done for.
  - harles 5y ago
    Even among previously respected outlets, there’s a trend towards more clickbait style stories. It feels like a response to losing ad revenue to social media and search which is unfortunate. Things like The Wirecutter have definitely lessened the whole outlet to me.

reaperducer 5y ago

I would get them every day and there were rarely more than one story in them that I would actually read. Maybe the problem wasn't the paper. The New York Times' target audience isn't grad students. I don't think it's all that surprising that you weren't all that interested in it. As we get older, we change. We learn more. We become interested in more things. Depending on how long it's been since grad school, you may be interested in what's in the Times now. I know that I don't like the same thing I did back in grad school. I certainly know that I'm interested in more things than I was then. When I was in grad school, I couldn't stand the taste of tapioca. Now, I love it.

kaesar14 5y ago
The New York Times target audience isn’t a highly educated young American? Maybe that’s the problem, as pointed out?
- anonAndOn 5y ago
  > young No. Middle-career and beyond because you probably can't afford tickets to the Met gala if you're <35.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ribosometronome 5y ago
    Those are $35,000. I suspect they hope to have a broader audience than folk who regularly drop 35k on a single night's event.
    - hellbannedguy 5y ago
      I had no idea it was that expensive. I will never understand the way certain people spend money. I could buy a toolbox filled with Snap-on tools for one night of cringing. There is a politician who's ruining the democratic party that was at that event.

threatofrain 5y ago

1. News isn't worth paying for when the race-to-the-bottom has already occurred. How do you persuade people to buy things which are basically free and can be viewed even without ads? 2. For many events, it's not the writing I care about but the information. IMO Google realizes the difference and bets on information over writing, whereas NYT still wants to sell writing. All publications which are trying to stop Google from scraping their information are basically insisting that their copyrightable storytelling is being ruined by Google's information extraction. 3. For general news, I often don't know what I want to know. This is where news aggregation is way better than individual outlets, at least most of the time, with exceptions going to specific domains like food or games. If WION gets the exclusive interview, then WION is where I want to go and everyone else is just re-reporting. News aggregation also allows you to take in a sense of inter-rater reliability on a per-story level. But this is all playing into Google's strengths. Given this, I don't understand people saying this or that outlet sucks; for example, does Buzzfeed News suck? Just the name alone makes it sound like celebrity news gossip. But then once and awhile Buzzfeed News gets an exclusive interview (such as on Palantir matters), and guess what, I want them to show up on my aggregators.

jdavis703 5y ago

USA Today is deliberately written at a 10th grade reading level, so it’s doubtful how relevant it is for university students. But if you found only one relevant article in the NY Times then either you were consuming radio/TV news, or just don’t care about current events. Which is fine, it just means you weren’t the target audience.

jart 5y ago
Is there a higher reading level than tenth grade? What's the point in using plain language if you're not going to speak plainly when you can switch to a programming language or math?
- jdavis703 5y ago
  Yes, if I’m reading an English-language paper I want them to use the proper language. Don’t explain to me what “budget reconciliation” is, just write “budget reconciliation.” On the off chance there’s a word or phrase I don’t know, I can look it up.
  - throwaway_e66m 5y ago
    Wouldn't the same apply to e.g. the New York Times [1] and the Washington Post [2], etc.? I find any article with "explainer" in the title to be extremely condescending; it seems to me that no newspaper has a monopoly on dumbing down topics. [1] From https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/27/us/politics/us-debt-ceiling.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/27/us/politics/us-debt-ceili...: > All of this drama raises the question of what the debt limit really is... > > What is the debt limit? > > The debt limit is a cap on the total amount of money that the federal government is authorized to borrow to fulfill its financial obligations. [2] From https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/09/18/everything-you-need-to-know-about-why-the-government-might-shut-down/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/09/18/every...: > What's a continuing resolution? > > It's a bill that tells the federal government's agencies, “Keep on spending like you've been spending till we can actually come to some agreement on how much you should be spending.”
5y ago

AniseAbyss 5y ago

I suppose it is to be expected from this site that there is more respect for tech douchebags sitting in their climate controlled offices than journalists risking their lives in warzones.