3 ms·

It's too bad we don't have a proper digital currency that's treated like an actual currency and now a get rich quick scheme. I'd happily toss 50 cents (anonymou

by imzadi 3y ago

It's too bad we don't have a proper digital currency that's treated like an actual currency and now a get rich quick scheme. I'd happily toss 50 cents (anonymously) to a digital newspaper for today's paper when an article gets my attention, but I'm not going to sign up for a subscription to every paper under the sun.

jaredwiener 3y ago
The problem with this approach is that it incentivizes the incredulous, overhyped, yellow journalism that people (at least claim to) hate. Good journalism takes time, and there are a lot of dead ends. Even entire stories. One personal example -- in a previous point in my life when I worked as TV news producer, I once thought I discovered an incredible example of government over-spending -- airports in the middle of nowhere Alaska built to handle the largest commercial jetliners. But after further digging, I learned that this really made flights to and from Asia safe; a pilot could opt for one of these long runways in an emergency. Suddenly they didn't seem so pointless -- and there was never a story. That's the kind of rabbit hole I would not have been able to go down if my entire paycheck was dependent on maximum eyeballs. Could it have been a story? Yes! Was it? No! Was it something I thought warranted a few hours of investigation? Yes. These various business models all have pros and cons, but ultimately, some form of community investment into media is needed. Whether thats through subscriptions, advertising, donations, or some thing else is still unclear. And of course, on the newsroom side of things, they need to foster the trust that they are looking into things that may turn out to be nothing, but also could be important. We as a society just need to find a way to pay for it.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Well said. Also, if people paid for news by the piece, it would mean that truly important news stories that aren't sensationalistic would be less likely to be done because there's no chance that they would bring in the bucks. It's a bit like movies: the blockbuster schlock is necessary to fund the production of other movies that may or may not make a dime, but are of great value nonetheless.
- imzadi 3y ago
  I'm not talking about paying by the piece. I'm talking about buying today's paper the same way I would if I went into 7-11. I just want to be able to spend 50 cents or a $1 or whatever a newspaper costs these days to get the paper without giving up all my personal information and a bunch of time.
- tw04 3y ago
  > The problem with this approach is that it incentivizes the incredulous, overhyped, yellow journalism that people (at least claim to) hate. Is that really a problem though? How many times are you going to click on that news source before you just see the name and don’t bother? Even among “free” news sources there are plenty I won’t give the time of day because I know they’re peddling nonsense and half-truths-at-best.
  - gunapologist99 3y ago
    That's right. Nobody really mourned Gawker.
- graycat 3y ago
  > worked as TV news producer A view: (1) Want to know what is going on in the world, to improve life, career, be an informed citizen, for curiosity, etc. and (2) would like to have a news source that would provide (1). So far, know of no source(s) that provides (1) with quality high enough to pay attention to: One issue of quality is (A) achieving common high school standards for term papers; can't find such sources. (B) Can like entertainment but mostly want INFORMATION that is both credible and relevant to (1). (C) Can't find sources with such information. (D) Simple tests: (i) What was the arithmetic used to calculate efficacy of Covid vaccine in the early randomized, placebo controlled, double blind trials -- it appears that the US MSM (mainstream media) doesn't understand or want to understand that arithmetic. (ii) How big is the US national debt, over time, in comparison with the US GDP, considering inflation, in comparison with the needed US money supply, other considerations? (iii) The US birth rate is so low, on average less than 2 per woman, we are going extinct -- why, in the US, EU, Japan, etc.? (iv) What people, companies, organizations are driving the US open borders and how are they doing that? (v) What are the forces that have made acceptable, surgery on the genitals of minors and how did those forces do that? A summary of the MSM is that it is often traditional journalism where instead of the standards and techniques common in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) fields goes for emotionalism (over rationalism) borrowing from drama and fictional literature -- grab people by the heart, the gut, and below the belt and their eyeballs and ad revenue will be sure to follow. Not all such information in (1) produced with quality as in (A) and (B) has to be comparatively expensive.
  - bigbillheck 3y ago
    >(iv) What people, companies, organizations are driving the US open borders and how are they doing that? (v) What are the forces that have made acceptable, surgery on the genitals of minors and how did those forces do that? > A summary of the MSM is that it is often traditional journalism where instead of the standards and techniques common in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) fields goes for emotionalism (over rationalism) borrowing from drama and fictional literature -- grab people by the heart, the gut, and below the belt and their eyeballs and ad revenue will be sure to follow. You appear to have been thoroughly grabbed. Perhaps you should consider holding these claims to the same standards of evidence you demand for the others in your list.
bookofjoe 3y ago
Spot-on. I've been waiting for micropayments since the days of the World Wide Web and still no joy.
pradn 3y ago
Publishers already get micropayments from you when you visit their site - just not from you directly, but from advertisers. The same incentives for click-bait and low-quality journalism will exist in a world with reader-driven micropayments. The NYT now has 1/3 of their top area dedicated to "lifestyle" (what's going on on Tiktok) and "opinion" sections - both of which bring in tons of clicks.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- eviks 3y ago
  "Just not from you" is a big incentive changer, so they won't be the same even if some junk always pays
stonogo 3y ago
We already have currency. Given how widespread microtransactions are in other industries, it's really only web journalism that hasn't figured it out. Even those physical newspapers are ad-supported. Hell, if you leave out the ads in a Sunday paper you get complaints. Web advertising is a cesspool in comparison and the market leaders are incentivized to keep it that way. Inventing new money won't fix that.
tootie 3y ago
That could be done but from my observation no publisher would be interested in it. It would incentivize the return of clickbait and skew publishers towards low engagement, viral content and away form building trust. Likely pushing consumption back off platform to social media where they're at the mercy of algorithms. And revenue would become wildly unpredictable.
gunapologist99 3y ago
Or pay $8/mo for a newsletter subscription that seems to only be semi-annual.

by imzadi 3y ago

jaredwiener 3y ago

The problem with this approach is that it incentivizes the incredulous, overhyped, yellow journalism that people (at least claim to) hate. Good journalism takes time, and there are a lot of dead ends. Even entire stories. One personal example -- in a previous point in my life when I worked as TV news producer, I once thought I discovered an incredible example of government over-spending -- airports in the middle of nowhere Alaska built to handle the largest commercial jetliners. But after further digging, I learned that this really made flights to and from Asia safe; a pilot could opt for one of these long runways in an emergency. Suddenly they didn't seem so pointless -- and there was never a story. That's the kind of rabbit hole I would not have been able to go down if my entire paycheck was dependent on maximum eyeballs. Could it have been a story? Yes! Was it? No! Was it something I thought warranted a few hours of investigation? Yes. These various business models all have pros and cons, but ultimately, some form of community investment into media is needed. Whether thats through subscriptions, advertising, donations, or some thing else is still unclear. And of course, on the newsroom side of things, they need to foster the trust that they are looking into things that may turn out to be nothing, but also could be important. We as a society just need to find a way to pay for it.

JohnFen 3y ago
Well said. Also, if people paid for news by the piece, it would mean that truly important news stories that aren't sensationalistic would be less likely to be done because there's no chance that they would bring in the bucks. It's a bit like movies: the blockbuster schlock is necessary to fund the production of other movies that may or may not make a dime, but are of great value nonetheless.
imzadi 3y ago
I'm not talking about paying by the piece. I'm talking about buying today's paper the same way I would if I went into 7-11. I just want to be able to spend 50 cents or a $1 or whatever a newspaper costs these days to get the paper without giving up all my personal information and a bunch of time.
tw04 3y ago
> The problem with this approach is that it incentivizes the incredulous, overhyped, yellow journalism that people (at least claim to) hate. Is that really a problem though? How many times are you going to click on that news source before you just see the name and don’t bother? Even among “free” news sources there are plenty I won’t give the time of day because I know they’re peddling nonsense and half-truths-at-best.
- gunapologist99 3y ago
  That's right. Nobody really mourned Gawker.
graycat 3y ago
> worked as TV news producer A view: (1) Want to know what is going on in the world, to improve life, career, be an informed citizen, for curiosity, etc. and (2) would like to have a news source that would provide (1). So far, know of no source(s) that provides (1) with quality high enough to pay attention to: One issue of quality is (A) achieving common high school standards for term papers; can't find such sources. (B) Can like entertainment but mostly want INFORMATION that is both credible and relevant to (1). (C) Can't find sources with such information. (D) Simple tests: (i) What was the arithmetic used to calculate efficacy of Covid vaccine in the early randomized, placebo controlled, double blind trials -- it appears that the US MSM (mainstream media) doesn't understand or want to understand that arithmetic. (ii) How big is the US national debt, over time, in comparison with the US GDP, considering inflation, in comparison with the needed US money supply, other considerations? (iii) The US birth rate is so low, on average less than 2 per woman, we are going extinct -- why, in the US, EU, Japan, etc.? (iv) What people, companies, organizations are driving the US open borders and how are they doing that? (v) What are the forces that have made acceptable, surgery on the genitals of minors and how did those forces do that? A summary of the MSM is that it is often traditional journalism where instead of the standards and techniques common in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) fields goes for emotionalism (over rationalism) borrowing from drama and fictional literature -- grab people by the heart, the gut, and below the belt and their eyeballs and ad revenue will be sure to follow. Not all such information in (1) produced with quality as in (A) and (B) has to be comparatively expensive.
- bigbillheck 3y ago
  >(iv) What people, companies, organizations are driving the US open borders and how are they doing that? (v) What are the forces that have made acceptable, surgery on the genitals of minors and how did those forces do that? > A summary of the MSM is that it is often traditional journalism where instead of the standards and techniques common in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) fields goes for emotionalism (over rationalism) borrowing from drama and fictional literature -- grab people by the heart, the gut, and below the belt and their eyeballs and ad revenue will be sure to follow. You appear to have been thoroughly grabbed. Perhaps you should consider holding these claims to the same standards of evidence you demand for the others in your list.

bookofjoe 3y ago

Spot-on. I've been waiting for micropayments since the days of the World Wide Web and still no joy.

pradn 3y ago

Publishers already get micropayments from you when you visit their site - just not from you directly, but from advertisers. The same incentives for click-bait and low-quality journalism will exist in a world with reader-driven micropayments. The NYT now has 1/3 of their top area dedicated to "lifestyle" (what's going on on Tiktok) and "opinion" sections - both of which bring in tons of clicks.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
eviks 3y ago
"Just not from you" is a big incentive changer, so they won't be the same even if some junk always pays

stonogo 3y ago

We already have currency. Given how widespread microtransactions are in other industries, it's really only web journalism that hasn't figured it out. Even those physical newspapers are ad-supported. Hell, if you leave out the ads in a Sunday paper you get complaints. Web advertising is a cesspool in comparison and the market leaders are incentivized to keep it that way. Inventing new money won't fix that.

tootie 3y ago

That could be done but from my observation no publisher would be interested in it. It would incentivize the return of clickbait and skew publishers towards low engagement, viral content and away form building trust. Likely pushing consumption back off platform to social media where they're at the mercy of algorithms. And revenue would become wildly unpredictable.

gunapologist99 3y ago

Or pay $8/mo for a newsletter subscription that seems to only be semi-annual.