4 ms·

I would really like to pay for well edited news. I do not want to pay for advertising and trackers in my web browser. I want to pay someone that prioritizes rea

I would really like to pay for well edited news. I do not want to pay for advertising and trackers in my web browser. I want to pay someone that prioritizes readers over advertisers. Ideally, no ads at all, so there is no conflict of interest for the publication when choosing topics and investigating. I had a daily local newspaper subscription and canceled it over all of the analytics embedded in the website. I have long been a subscriber to The Economist. I value having a weekly update that is well edited and not repeating every 24 hours things that have not been well investigated. I am considering subscribing to other high value feeds like The Financial Times and Bloomberg. I would appreciate input on the best sources to subscribe to. Take my money, please!

ameister14 2y ago
I said this in another comment but I get a lot out of Bloomberg's financial and legal news. FT can be good and Foreign Affairs is usually pretty solid.
loufe 2y ago
Agreed, the only news I pay for is the economist. No other publication comes close to it in terms of quality, maturity and consistency of perspective, and reach. Pricey, but worth it.
- GoodJokes 2y ago
  [dead]
- knallfrosch 2y ago
  The Economist is also amazingly objective in its reporting. It's the only publication (that I know of) where you feel like both sides get a fair hearing.
- tuatoru 2y ago
  I subscribed to the Economist back in the day. I found an old joke to be true: get the weekly magazines, put them aside for six months, and then read them: they'll be more fun than Mad magazine. I'm considering subscribing to the Financial Times, since Bloomberg is out of reach.
  - mcculley 2y ago
    My line has been that it comes out every week and it takes me eight days to read it. I’m always falling behind.
airstrike 2y ago
Bloomberg is definitely worth it, although in a parallel universe they would make less of a deal of every single tiny bit of news as if it were all so important. Everything is breaking news, even when it isn't, so it gets exhausting after a while. You have to watch/read it with that filter on, IMHO. But then again, they aren't the only ones guilty of this, so I can't really pin in it on them specifically
gbnvc 2y ago
Well products like the ones you describe do exist. But apparently you don’t know them because you listed Bloomberg as high value when it’s a pay to play publication.
- mcculley 2y ago
  That's why I am asking. Do you have suggestions?
oldnetguy 2y ago
The problem with this business model is that the paper caters to the ideology of the subscribers. Look at the New York Times as an example
- mcculley 2y ago
  I don't see how that is worse than catering to the ideology of advertisers. Can you elaborate?
  - oldnetguy 2y ago
    I don't see how it is better. You seem to be ok with catering to an ideology.
    - mcculley 2y ago
      I don’t see how ideology is escapable. How is the editorial staff being influenced by advertisers better than being influenced by subscribers?
      - oldnetguy 2y ago
        "I don’t see how ideology is escapable." And that is your problem. You are OK with ideology in NEWS.
        mcculley 2y ago
        I accept that everyone is vulnerable to ideology and I skeptically read the news. I am interested in reporting of facts and insight from those with an ideology different from my own. You still have not answered the question. Advertisers have an ideology and a purpose when they influence news. How is that better?
        oldnetguy 2y ago
        No you expect ideology. You don't accept people doing their jobs professionally even if it counters to their ideology. That's a fail. You said "Ideally, no ads at all, so there is no conflict of interest for the publication when choosing topics and investigating." But there is one, and it's subscriber based. You accept bias as long as it is subscriber based. Your idea is flawed and your question is flawed. If anything having both revenue streams is more likely to help then only one or the other. The publication doesn't have to rely only on advertising because they have subscribers. This is not an option your question asked. You question is either or which is flawed. There are publications that have been critical of their advertisers, this is not a new concept. Multiple revenue streams help with this.
crooked-v 2y ago
I was briefly subscribed to Apple News+, but then I discovered that even if you pay it's still stuffed with ads everywhere, making the experience just plain worse than a browser with 12ft.io and so on.
spacemadness 2y ago
I have mixed feelings about the Financial Times. They are very expensive and often the title of the article leads you to believe you are about to obtain some deeper insight into a topic, but the article itself is often surface level at best and feels rushed. It’s better than a lot of other periodicals but not worth the price of entry.

ameister14 2y ago

I said this in another comment but I get a lot out of Bloomberg's financial and legal news. FT can be good and Foreign Affairs is usually pretty solid.

loufe 2y ago

Agreed, the only news I pay for is the economist. No other publication comes close to it in terms of quality, maturity and consistency of perspective, and reach. Pricey, but worth it.

GoodJokes 2y ago
[dead]
knallfrosch 2y ago
The Economist is also amazingly objective in its reporting. It's the only publication (that I know of) where you feel like both sides get a fair hearing.
tuatoru 2y ago
I subscribed to the Economist back in the day. I found an old joke to be true: get the weekly magazines, put them aside for six months, and then read them: they'll be more fun than Mad magazine. I'm considering subscribing to the Financial Times, since Bloomberg is out of reach.
- mcculley 2y ago
  My line has been that it comes out every week and it takes me eight days to read it. I’m always falling behind.

airstrike 2y ago

Bloomberg is definitely worth it, although in a parallel universe they would make less of a deal of every single tiny bit of news as if it were all so important. Everything is breaking news, even when it isn't, so it gets exhausting after a while. You have to watch/read it with that filter on, IMHO. But then again, they aren't the only ones guilty of this, so I can't really pin in it on them specifically

gbnvc 2y ago

Well products like the ones you describe do exist. But apparently you don’t know them because you listed Bloomberg as high value when it’s a pay to play publication.

mcculley 2y ago
That's why I am asking. Do you have suggestions?

oldnetguy 2y ago

The problem with this business model is that the paper caters to the ideology of the subscribers. Look at the New York Times as an example

mcculley 2y ago
I don't see how that is worse than catering to the ideology of advertisers. Can you elaborate?
- oldnetguy 2y ago
  I don't see how it is better. You seem to be ok with catering to an ideology.
  - mcculley 2y ago
    I don’t see how ideology is escapable. How is the editorial staff being influenced by advertisers better than being influenced by subscribers?
    - oldnetguy 2y ago
      "I don’t see how ideology is escapable." And that is your problem. You are OK with ideology in NEWS.
      - mcculley 2y ago
        I accept that everyone is vulnerable to ideology and I skeptically read the news. I am interested in reporting of facts and insight from those with an ideology different from my own. You still have not answered the question. Advertisers have an ideology and a purpose when they influence news. How is that better?
        oldnetguy 2y ago
        No you expect ideology. You don't accept people doing their jobs professionally even if it counters to their ideology. That's a fail. You said "Ideally, no ads at all, so there is no conflict of interest for the publication when choosing topics and investigating." But there is one, and it's subscriber based. You accept bias as long as it is subscriber based. Your idea is flawed and your question is flawed. If anything having both revenue streams is more likely to help then only one or the other. The publication doesn't have to rely only on advertising because they have subscribers. This is not an option your question asked. You question is either or which is flawed. There are publications that have been critical of their advertisers, this is not a new concept. Multiple revenue streams help with this.

crooked-v 2y ago

I was briefly subscribed to Apple News+, but then I discovered that even if you pay it's still stuffed with ads everywhere, making the experience just plain worse than a browser with 12ft.io and so on.

spacemadness 2y ago

I have mixed feelings about the Financial Times. They are very expensive and often the title of the article leads you to believe you are about to obtain some deeper insight into a topic, but the article itself is often surface level at best and feels rushed. It’s better than a lot of other periodicals but not worth the price of entry.