5 ms·

The truth is paywalled but the lies are free (2020)

38 points by anigbrowl 3y ago

Bostonian 3y ago
The author ignores the Wall Street Journal, a prominent right-leaning paywalled source, and he implies that an essay opposing mask mandates is inherently ridiculous. There is right-wing and left-wing BS, but the biases of the mainstream media are one factor driving some people toward dubious sources. 'But let us also notice something: the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Washington Post, the New Republic, New York, Harper’s, the New York Review of Books, the Financial Times, and the London Times all have paywalls. Breitbart, Fox News, the Daily Wire, the Federalist, the Washington Examiner, InfoWars: free! You want “Portland Protesters Burn Bibles, American Flags In The Streets,” “The Moral Case Against Mask Mandates And Other COVID Restrictions,” or an article suggesting the National Institutes of Health has admitted 5G phones cause coronavirus—they’re yours.'
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
btbuildem 3y ago
Well this is far too long to read, driving that point home should not take thousands of words. Mark Twain was once alleged to say: “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” Seems it's been this way for a long time. The real question is, what are the consequences of deepening the divide between the haves and the have nots and creating an even bigger cultural gap? Knowledge is power and all that, so gatekeeping access to quality information (deliberately, or as a side-effect of an economic system) kind of tracks.
- johnea 3y ago
  Well, that is true. It is long form, but it does cover a series of sub-topics, not just the primary one. tl;dr modern capitalism cannot provide the optimal distribution of information needed to support maximum economic output and growth. It's really a restatement of Jefferson's argument for public education: the increased economic bennifits of an educated population more than pay for the education.
istillwritecode 3y ago
foxnews.com is not paywalled, but mostly spews crap to the uneducated. By contrast, nytimes is paywalled. I'm sure that limits the effectiveness of legitimate news organizations.
aeternum 3y ago
I find the opposite to be the case. The large news orgs with all the paywalls are now mostly used to push a narrative. This has been the case for years, best demonstrated by this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksb3KD6DfSI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksb3KD6DfSI The free internet still exists, and is not paywalled.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mcphage 3y ago
  > The free internet still exists, and is not paywalled. ...and is also used to push a narrative.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
southernplaces7 3y ago
Nah. The paywalled stuff is just as full of lies, biases and bullshit as they free stuff. It's just more polished and better marketed as a sophisticated alternative. Back in 2020 the narrative of trusting our betters to make decisions for us due to the dangers of uncoordinated thinking and "misinformation" was even more pervasive than now. But they really expect me to believe that, say, the paywalled NY Times is a better purveyor of truth than many interesting free sources of info because it charges you? Or because coincidentally, it happens not to be right-leaning like some of the apparently dangerous free news sources this article mentions? Really? The same paper that sold the Iraq fiasco hook, line and sinker to the public mendaciously enough to make Goebbels proud is now going to be considered superior to the free stuff? I'd actually rather trust the diversity of weirdness that comes with all sorts of free content being freely available from a range of opinions across the spectrum.. Among the frequent bullshit you can find gems of contray thinking and refreshing takes that put you outside of some idiotic bubble or another of "correct opinion", and their very freedom to express themselves as they see fit is exactly what produces such good qualities.
- tivert 3y ago
  > Nah. The paywalled stuff is just as full of lies, biases and bullshit as they free stuff. It's just more polished and better marketed as a sophisticated alternative. ... > But they really expect me to believe that, say, the paywalled NY Times is a better purveyor of truth than many interesting free sources of info because it charges you? I think that it's totally valid to acknowledge these are both true: 1) So-called trusted paywalled journalistic institutions like the NY Times can have significant issues with "lies, biases and bullshit," and 2) institutions like the NY Times have significantly more resources available for uncovering, gathering, and analyzing information than any "interesting free sources of info." In my experience, most "interesting free sources of info" mostly provide commentary using the output of traditional news organizations, and sometimes also repackage their output. Personally I think the right call is to subscribe to something like the NY Times, hope/agitate for it to deal with its issues better, and in the meantime learn its biases and correct for them.
  - southernplaces7 3y ago
1oooqooq 3y ago
and the relevant data is behind a Bloomberg terminal.
zrn900 3y ago
A lot of those 'truth' sources that the author complains about being paywalled propagated the Iraqi WMD lie for years. Some still try to push the narrative that there are WMDs in Iraq.

38 points by anigbrowl 3y ago

The author ignores the Wall Street Journal, a prominent right-leaning paywalled source, and he implies that an essay opposing mask mandates is inherently ridiculous. There is right-wing and left-wing BS, but the biases of the mainstream media are one factor driving some people toward dubious sources. 'But let us also notice something: the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Washington Post, the New Republic, New York, Harper’s, the New York Review of Books, the Financial Times, and the London Times all have paywalls. Breitbart, Fox News, the Daily Wire, the Federalist, the Washington Examiner, InfoWars: free! You want “Portland Protesters Burn Bibles, American Flags In The Streets,” “The Moral Case Against Mask Mandates And Other COVID Restrictions,” or an article suggesting the National Institutes of Health has admitted 5G phones cause coronavirus—they’re yours.'

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

btbuildem 3y ago

Well this is far too long to read, driving that point home should not take thousands of words. Mark Twain was once alleged to say: “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” Seems it's been this way for a long time. The real question is, what are the consequences of deepening the divide between the haves and the have nots and creating an even bigger cultural gap? Knowledge is power and all that, so gatekeeping access to quality information (deliberately, or as a side-effect of an economic system) kind of tracks.

johnea 3y ago
Well, that is true. It is long form, but it does cover a series of sub-topics, not just the primary one. tl;dr modern capitalism cannot provide the optimal distribution of information needed to support maximum economic output and growth. It's really a restatement of Jefferson's argument for public education: the increased economic bennifits of an educated population more than pay for the education.

istillwritecode 3y ago

foxnews.com is not paywalled, but mostly spews crap to the uneducated. By contrast, nytimes is paywalled. I'm sure that limits the effectiveness of legitimate news organizations.

aeternum 3y ago

I find the opposite to be the case. The large news orgs with all the paywalls are now mostly used to push a narrative. This has been the case for years, best demonstrated by this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksb3KD6DfSI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksb3KD6DfSI The free internet still exists, and is not paywalled.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mcphage 3y ago
> The free internet still exists, and is not paywalled. ...and is also used to push a narrative.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

southernplaces7 3y ago

Nah. The paywalled stuff is just as full of lies, biases and bullshit as they free stuff. It's just more polished and better marketed as a sophisticated alternative. Back in 2020 the narrative of trusting our betters to make decisions for us due to the dangers of uncoordinated thinking and "misinformation" was even more pervasive than now. But they really expect me to believe that, say, the paywalled NY Times is a better purveyor of truth than many interesting free sources of info because it charges you? Or because coincidentally, it happens not to be right-leaning like some of the apparently dangerous free news sources this article mentions? Really? The same paper that sold the Iraq fiasco hook, line and sinker to the public mendaciously enough to make Goebbels proud is now going to be considered superior to the free stuff? I'd actually rather trust the diversity of weirdness that comes with all sorts of free content being freely available from a range of opinions across the spectrum.. Among the frequent bullshit you can find gems of contray thinking and refreshing takes that put you outside of some idiotic bubble or another of "correct opinion", and their very freedom to express themselves as they see fit is exactly what produces such good qualities.

tivert 3y ago
> Nah. The paywalled stuff is just as full of lies, biases and bullshit as they free stuff. It's just more polished and better marketed as a sophisticated alternative. ... > But they really expect me to believe that, say, the paywalled NY Times is a better purveyor of truth than many interesting free sources of info because it charges you? I think that it's totally valid to acknowledge these are both true: 1) So-called trusted paywalled journalistic institutions like the NY Times can have significant issues with "lies, biases and bullshit," and 2) institutions like the NY Times have significantly more resources available for uncovering, gathering, and analyzing information than any "interesting free sources of info." In my experience, most "interesting free sources of info" mostly provide commentary using the output of traditional news organizations, and sometimes also repackage their output. Personally I think the right call is to subscribe to something like the NY Times, hope/agitate for it to deal with its issues better, and in the meantime learn its biases and correct for them.
- southernplaces7 3y ago

1oooqooq 3y ago

and the relevant data is behind a Bloomberg terminal.

zrn900 3y ago

A lot of those 'truth' sources that the author complains about being paywalled propagated the Iraqi WMD lie for years. Some still try to push the narrative that there are WMDs in Iraq.