4 ms·

I think the problem comes down to: I have no faith that any for-profit journalism institution presenting a paywall will perform like a good actor in return, bec

by wcarss 3y ago

I think the problem comes down to: I have no faith that any for-profit journalism institution presenting a paywall will perform like a good actor in return, because the well of advertisement and content for money has been poisoned for so long by so many bad actors that there can be no trust. Cable promised that you paid it, so it would never have ads. At the movie theatre, you pay to get in, then pay $25 for sugarwater and corn, then sit through 25 minutes of advertisement. Does the international-megacorp-owned newspaper that shut down all its local news teams really need my $6/month? Would they do good if I gave it to them? The horse is unfortunately kinda out the barn door here. Not part of that group are smaller, intentionally local or mission driven, perhaps non-profit organizations, especially if they offer the news for free but then have a premium model that allows me to support them and get a non-essential frill. Those places are at least starting from a place of utility and trust, and I will reward them for it.

plagiarist 3y ago
How is so much of the content just corporate or police press releases without any further research? How are so many publications willing to provide a pseudo-authorative platform for the worst people on the planet in their op eds? Without even bringing up that I'd be paying for the privilege of having ads jammed in every three inches of scroll. I'm not paying a damn thing to help them spread bullshit as if it were news.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  > How are so many publications willing to provide a pseudo-authorative platform for the worst people on the planet in their op eds? That's because newspapers should be platforms of free speech. If an editor refuses to take in an op-ed from important people, no mater how horrible, hen he is no fi for he job. If newspaper readers don't want to read the opinion of their enemies, they're just dumb.
  - plagiarist 3y ago
    They should be platforms of journalism. There are plenty of other venues available for "important people" to share their views. A news outlet lending credibility by uncritically publishing an opinion is not journalism.
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      A news outlets lends credibility by publishing an op-ed as much as Samsung lends credibility to what you're saying when you're on the phone with somebody. Newspapers have always been and should be part of the public sphere. Their mission should be to investigate, interview, report, publish, and let the reader form her own opinion. Not to shove their own opinions down the reader's throat. A serious newspaper will interview both sides of any conflict, and print their viewpoints uncensored. Do you want to read the an op-ed written by Putin or Biden in the New York Times or do you want them to write "That horrible man doesn't have opinions that align with ours, so we won't print him so that our readers are protected from him"?
      - plagiarist 3y ago
        You contradict yourself by saying both the platform should publish important people and that the platform is not lending credibility. Which is it? Then you created a strawman argument to knock down. If they do anything, I'd actually like them to research the statements made and publish the facts instead of publishing the statements directly under their headline. They don't need to put their heads in the sand. Maybe spending less time reading biased op-eds would help you develop better skills in this area.
        carlosjobim 3y ago
        Your insult is the kind of low quality insult that gets published sometimes in smaller local newspapers. It doesn't add anything but at least helps in filling up the pages – or the DOM in our case. > If they do anything, I'd actually like them to research the statements made and publish the facts instead of publishing the statements directly under their headline. That's exactly what they almost always do, if such statements are made. But usually there will be an opponent refuting the claims in his own op-ed in tomorrow's newspaper. >You contradict yourself by saying both the platform should publish important people and that the platform is not lending credibility. Which is it? Where is the contradiction? If you understand that opinion is different from reporting, then there is no credibility lending or borrowing. Likewise a newspaper doesn't endorse eating at Subway just because they print one of their ads.

by wcarss 3y ago

plagiarist 3y ago

How is so much of the content just corporate or police press releases without any further research? How are so many publications willing to provide a pseudo-authorative platform for the worst people on the planet in their op eds? Without even bringing up that I'd be paying for the privilege of having ads jammed in every three inches of scroll. I'm not paying a damn thing to help them spread bullshit as if it were news.

carlosjobim 3y ago
> How are so many publications willing to provide a pseudo-authorative platform for the worst people on the planet in their op eds? That's because newspapers should be platforms of free speech. If an editor refuses to take in an op-ed from important people, no mater how horrible, hen he is no fi for he job. If newspaper readers don't want to read the opinion of their enemies, they're just dumb.
- plagiarist 3y ago
  They should be platforms of journalism. There are plenty of other venues available for "important people" to share their views. A news outlet lending credibility by uncritically publishing an opinion is not journalism.
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    A news outlets lends credibility by publishing an op-ed as much as Samsung lends credibility to what you're saying when you're on the phone with somebody. Newspapers have always been and should be part of the public sphere. Their mission should be to investigate, interview, report, publish, and let the reader form her own opinion. Not to shove their own opinions down the reader's throat. A serious newspaper will interview both sides of any conflict, and print their viewpoints uncensored. Do you want to read the an op-ed written by Putin or Biden in the New York Times or do you want them to write "That horrible man doesn't have opinions that align with ours, so we won't print him so that our readers are protected from him"?
    - plagiarist 3y ago
      You contradict yourself by saying both the platform should publish important people and that the platform is not lending credibility. Which is it? Then you created a strawman argument to knock down. If they do anything, I'd actually like them to research the statements made and publish the facts instead of publishing the statements directly under their headline. They don't need to put their heads in the sand. Maybe spending less time reading biased op-eds would help you develop better skills in this area.
      - carlosjobim 3y ago
        Your insult is the kind of low quality insult that gets published sometimes in smaller local newspapers. It doesn't add anything but at least helps in filling up the pages – or the DOM in our case. > If they do anything, I'd actually like them to research the statements made and publish the facts instead of publishing the statements directly under their headline. That's exactly what they almost always do, if such statements are made. But usually there will be an opponent refuting the claims in his own op-ed in tomorrow's newspaper. >You contradict yourself by saying both the platform should publish important people and that the platform is not lending credibility. Which is it? Where is the contradiction? If you understand that opinion is different from reporting, then there is no credibility lending or borrowing. Likewise a newspaper doesn't endorse eating at Subway just because they print one of their ads.