4 ms·

I want to pay for news. I just don't want to pay for every news platform there is on this world, searately, because some manager somewhere decides that this wil

I want to pay for news. I just don't want to pay for every news platform there is on this world, searately, because some manager somewhere decides that this will push the brand (same applies for movies, songs, etc) (not to go against your argument, I'm just elaborating on it)

nequo 3y ago
That’s how we used to pay for newspapers though. Cable companies use bundling instead and you get a lot of crap that you don’t need but they price discriminate you into.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  Sure, but how many people subscribed to >2 papers? Growing up, the family had the Washington Post and Economist, plus the nightly news on one of the major broadcast stations. Some people might also get the WSJ. I can't think of anybody I knew who got more than that.
  - iamthirsty 3y ago
    I subscribe to >2 papers. Some people even go as far as purchasing a Bloomberg terminal to get the news – albeit financial – as soon as it hits the wire. The group who does pay for news, as I've alluded to, are people in the financial sector, or those who's knowledge of the news affects or is inherent to their job. Business people, basically. On a personal note, in high-school I competed on a team competition – Academic Decathlon – and my testing subject was Current Events. So I may be somewhat outside the norm. I subscribe to the Financial Times, the Economist, WSJ, Bloomberg, and more.
  - nemothekid 3y ago
    >Sure, but how many people subscribed to >2 papers? My parents may have been more well off so this might not be representative, but it wasn't just papers; we also subscribed to several magazines. Growing up I remember we had: * New York Times * Wall Street Journal * The Economist Magazine * Time Magazine * Nintendo Power * Highlights for Children I remember my Aunt subscribing to Vogue, Ebony and Reader's Digest, on top of the finance publications she and my dad were subscribed to. 30 years ago, Vice might have existed as a magazine, not a major publication.
- chmod775 3y ago
  You could also hand the newspaper to a friend if you wanted to show them an article. The modern equivalent is sending someone a link, which won't work so well.
alistairSH 3y ago
Agreed. My solution was to subscribe to one reasonable newspaper (Washington Post). Between that, free BBC content, and NPR, I think I get a reasonable overview of world and local news. But, that does mean I miss breaking investigative news from other sources. At least until it's picked up elsewhere or made available elsewhere. It's a bummer at time, but paying for a large subset of possible news sources would cost 10x+ what I pay now.
- falafel 3y ago
  BBC, NPR and Washington Post are all left leaning organizations funded by governments and billionaires. I don't know if I would call this "getting a reasonable overview of world and local news".
  - gamblor956 3y ago
    BBC, NPR, and Washington Post are all neutral organizations. WaPo is the home of neocons Hugh Hewitt and Jennifer Rubin. When I first started reading WaPo, they were considered (and they considered themselves to be) far right neocons. These days, Ms. Rubin would be classified as a moderate (and considers herself to be an independent) and Mr. Hewitt is frequently accused of being a RINO. They haven't changed their political stances (if anything, Hewitt is more conservative now than he was before); it is simply that the Republican Party has moved extremely far to the right in the past decade and what was once considered extreme is now moderate.
    - tatrajim 3y ago
      NPR is a "neutral organization"? I suspect that would wound the souls of many of the staff there. See, for example: "New NPR Ethics Policy: It's OK For Journalists To Demonstrate (Sometimes)" https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2021/07/29/1021802098/new-npr-ethics-policy-its-ok-for-journalists-to-demonstrate-sometimes https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2021/07/29/1021802...
      - heyoni 3y ago
lostgame 3y ago
…so…Apple News+?

nequo 3y ago

That’s how we used to pay for newspapers though. Cable companies use bundling instead and you get a lot of crap that you don’t need but they price discriminate you into.

alistairSH 3y ago
Sure, but how many people subscribed to >2 papers? Growing up, the family had the Washington Post and Economist, plus the nightly news on one of the major broadcast stations. Some people might also get the WSJ. I can't think of anybody I knew who got more than that.
- iamthirsty 3y ago
  I subscribe to >2 papers. Some people even go as far as purchasing a Bloomberg terminal to get the news – albeit financial – as soon as it hits the wire. The group who does pay for news, as I've alluded to, are people in the financial sector, or those who's knowledge of the news affects or is inherent to their job. Business people, basically. On a personal note, in high-school I competed on a team competition – Academic Decathlon – and my testing subject was Current Events. So I may be somewhat outside the norm. I subscribe to the Financial Times, the Economist, WSJ, Bloomberg, and more.
- nemothekid 3y ago
  >Sure, but how many people subscribed to >2 papers? My parents may have been more well off so this might not be representative, but it wasn't just papers; we also subscribed to several magazines. Growing up I remember we had: * New York Times * Wall Street Journal * The Economist Magazine * Time Magazine * Nintendo Power * Highlights for Children I remember my Aunt subscribing to Vogue, Ebony and Reader's Digest, on top of the finance publications she and my dad were subscribed to. 30 years ago, Vice might have existed as a magazine, not a major publication.
chmod775 3y ago
You could also hand the newspaper to a friend if you wanted to show them an article. The modern equivalent is sending someone a link, which won't work so well.

alistairSH 3y ago

Agreed. My solution was to subscribe to one reasonable newspaper (Washington Post). Between that, free BBC content, and NPR, I think I get a reasonable overview of world and local news. But, that does mean I miss breaking investigative news from other sources. At least until it's picked up elsewhere or made available elsewhere. It's a bummer at time, but paying for a large subset of possible news sources would cost 10x+ what I pay now.

falafel 3y ago
BBC, NPR and Washington Post are all left leaning organizations funded by governments and billionaires. I don't know if I would call this "getting a reasonable overview of world and local news".
- gamblor956 3y ago
  BBC, NPR, and Washington Post are all neutral organizations. WaPo is the home of neocons Hugh Hewitt and Jennifer Rubin. When I first started reading WaPo, they were considered (and they considered themselves to be) far right neocons. These days, Ms. Rubin would be classified as a moderate (and considers herself to be an independent) and Mr. Hewitt is frequently accused of being a RINO. They haven't changed their political stances (if anything, Hewitt is more conservative now than he was before); it is simply that the Republican Party has moved extremely far to the right in the past decade and what was once considered extreme is now moderate.
  - tatrajim 3y ago
    NPR is a "neutral organization"? I suspect that would wound the souls of many of the staff there. See, for example: "New NPR Ethics Policy: It's OK For Journalists To Demonstrate (Sometimes)" https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2021/07/29/1021802098/new-npr-ethics-policy-its-ok-for-journalists-to-demonstrate-sometimes https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2021/07/29/1021802...
    - heyoni 3y ago

lostgame 3y ago

…so…Apple News+?