6 ms·

Remove the money completely. I don't care how - my parents were both journalists but it's a dead industry. Australia's ABC News 24 is the closest I've found t

by lmpdev 5y ago

Remove the money completely. I don't care how - my parents were both journalists but it's a dead industry. Australia's ABC News 24 is the closest I've found to what I want. No ads, no advertorials, ever.

openknot 5y ago
What do you propose? It's hard to ask a team of professional writers, editors, illustrators, graphic designers, and web developers to work for free. Payroll costs money, as well as web hosting.
- jaredwiener 5y ago
  This is something I’m fascinated by, but know I’m not going to win by argument: actual, good reporting is very expensive. People spend money on so many things, but for some reason there’s resistance to paying for news. Why??
  - ddingus 5y ago
    They will pay when they believe in and can identify with the source.
  - openknot 5y ago
    There's a strong resistance to paywalls on Hacker News and many subreddits (due to many newspapers historically having no paywalls in the earlier days of the internet), but in other communities, there is actually a broad acceptance for paying for news. For example, the Financial Times, despite being comparatively pricey (I think about $400 USD per year), is doing well and has over 1 million subscribers despite its paywall since 2002 [0]. In 2021, The New York Times reached over 7.5 million subscribers, and is doing quite well financially (in contrast to most other news outlets in the US) [1]. Financial outlets (like the Financial Times, Bloomberg, and The Wall Street Journal) do well because their readership tends to have more money, or work for companies willing to pay for subscriptions (as avoiding the news could put their businesses, especially if in the financial sector, at a competitive disadvantage). The New York Times is an exception rather than the rule, because it offers readers the idea that they can become more well-informed and smarter by reading the newspaper (one can argue whether this is warranted, though it's an effective marketing argument). However, a lot of their revenue also comes from their Games section (crosswords and now Wordle, though Wordle doesn't have a paywall in its current form) and their recipes section. In short, I think people are willing to pay for the news when it can perform a function that can't be accessed elsewhere. Free social media can't give the in-depth coverage that quality newspapers provide, especially when it comes to analysis from a business perspective. Separately, The New York Times has an unparalleled crosswords section and a very strong recipe collection. [0] https://www.axios.com/financial-times-million-digital-only-subscribers-374d5e3a-a0e1-458f-a46f-fc14f2344a03.html https://www.axios.com/financial-times-million-digital-only-s... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/04/business/media/new-york-times-earnings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/04/business/media/new-york-t...
  - throwaway81523 5y ago
    For me it's less an issue of paying for news, than that the presence of money in news gathering and news publishing creates a conflict of interest about what is shown to readers. The news organization and its reporting will be controlled by whoever controls its finances, which for mainstream news is usually some oligarch (I guess we can use that word here now). So the org publishes the oligarch point of view, as noted in the soubriquet "Bezos Post". In the case of ad-supported online news, it's the clickbait point of view, and so on. It is hard to stop any organization from morphing into this over time as it gains resources and recognition and sees those as a goal to pursue. The Wikimedia Foundation is another example that gets discussed here now and then. The other thing is that news stops being news almost immediately. "Madeleine Albright passed away earlier today" was news this morning but now it is olds. I might be willing to pay for news but it's harder to tell myself I should pay for olds. Then I ask what value I gained in finding out about Madeleine Albright earlier instead of later, and the answer is: not much, so there is more payment resistance.
- kleer001 5y ago
  Taxes. IMHO journalism is a kind of infrastructure of the soul of a nation. Gov't funding, a strong and corruption free journalism union, and a unicorn fart in every mug, easy peasy.
  - DiggyJohnson 5y ago
    I think you have benefitted from living in an extremely secure place and time to not be worried about giving the media’s purse to the government and a union for journalists (like Realtors, maybe?). Not saying it’s unreasonable, but that’s my knee jerk reaction.
    - kleer001 5y ago
      ? > ... a unicorn fart in every mug, easy peasy I thought that was pretty clear sarcasm

by lmpdev 5y ago

openknot 5y ago

What do you propose? It's hard to ask a team of professional writers, editors, illustrators, graphic designers, and web developers to work for free. Payroll costs money, as well as web hosting.

jaredwiener 5y ago
This is something I’m fascinated by, but know I’m not going to win by argument: actual, good reporting is very expensive. People spend money on so many things, but for some reason there’s resistance to paying for news. Why??
- ddingus 5y ago
  They will pay when they believe in and can identify with the source.
- openknot 5y ago
  There's a strong resistance to paywalls on Hacker News and many subreddits (due to many newspapers historically having no paywalls in the earlier days of the internet), but in other communities, there is actually a broad acceptance for paying for news. For example, the Financial Times, despite being comparatively pricey (I think about $400 USD per year), is doing well and has over 1 million subscribers despite its paywall since 2002 [0]. In 2021, The New York Times reached over 7.5 million subscribers, and is doing quite well financially (in contrast to most other news outlets in the US) [1]. Financial outlets (like the Financial Times, Bloomberg, and The Wall Street Journal) do well because their readership tends to have more money, or work for companies willing to pay for subscriptions (as avoiding the news could put their businesses, especially if in the financial sector, at a competitive disadvantage). The New York Times is an exception rather than the rule, because it offers readers the idea that they can become more well-informed and smarter by reading the newspaper (one can argue whether this is warranted, though it's an effective marketing argument). However, a lot of their revenue also comes from their Games section (crosswords and now Wordle, though Wordle doesn't have a paywall in its current form) and their recipes section. In short, I think people are willing to pay for the news when it can perform a function that can't be accessed elsewhere. Free social media can't give the in-depth coverage that quality newspapers provide, especially when it comes to analysis from a business perspective. Separately, The New York Times has an unparalleled crosswords section and a very strong recipe collection. [0] https://www.axios.com/financial-times-million-digital-only-subscribers-374d5e3a-a0e1-458f-a46f-fc14f2344a03.html https://www.axios.com/financial-times-million-digital-only-s... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/04/business/media/new-york-times-earnings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/04/business/media/new-york-t...
- throwaway81523 5y ago
  For me it's less an issue of paying for news, than that the presence of money in news gathering and news publishing creates a conflict of interest about what is shown to readers. The news organization and its reporting will be controlled by whoever controls its finances, which for mainstream news is usually some oligarch (I guess we can use that word here now). So the org publishes the oligarch point of view, as noted in the soubriquet "Bezos Post". In the case of ad-supported online news, it's the clickbait point of view, and so on. It is hard to stop any organization from morphing into this over time as it gains resources and recognition and sees those as a goal to pursue. The Wikimedia Foundation is another example that gets discussed here now and then. The other thing is that news stops being news almost immediately. "Madeleine Albright passed away earlier today" was news this morning but now it is olds. I might be willing to pay for news but it's harder to tell myself I should pay for olds. Then I ask what value I gained in finding out about Madeleine Albright earlier instead of later, and the answer is: not much, so there is more payment resistance.
kleer001 5y ago
Taxes. IMHO journalism is a kind of infrastructure of the soul of a nation. Gov't funding, a strong and corruption free journalism union, and a unicorn fart in every mug, easy peasy.
- DiggyJohnson 5y ago
  I think you have benefitted from living in an extremely secure place and time to not be worried about giving the media’s purse to the government and a union for journalists (like Realtors, maybe?). Not saying it’s unreasonable, but that’s my knee jerk reaction.
  - kleer001 5y ago
    ? > ... a unicorn fart in every mug, easy peasy I thought that was pretty clear sarcasm