3 ms·

This attitude is why journalism is dying. There is value to an undissected payment to the publisher that gives them revenue surety and lets them fund a variety

This attitude is why journalism is dying. There is value to an undissected payment to the publisher that gives them revenue surety and lets them fund a variety of reporting, even if you don't personally find it interesting or relevant. This is exactly how journalism x publishing worked with the "rivers of gold" from classifieds/advertising during the golden age (also: this is exactly how Bell Labs, Google 20% time, etc were/are funded. The incessant need to pay for only the small portion you directly consume/find interesting kills this sort of thing).

jodacola 2y ago
Interesting thoughts. I can’t refute or support your assertions about the cause of journalism’s demise off hand, but I actually am very curious whether a publication could find success in a model where one could pay a nominal fee to access a give article (in addition to the normal subscription setup). I don’t pay for NYT. I don’t want to, because of the cancellation stories I see repeated. If I could pay $1 here and there to access an article, though? I’d do that. And NYT would get some money from me they aren’t getting now. Seems, maybe, worth it. I don’t know.
linsomniac 2y ago
I see the point you're making, but I'm not sure it's a fair assessment that my attitude is why journalism is dying. I'd almost go so far as to say we're making the same point. See, back in the "good olde days", I could subscribe to 1 or 2 sources of news (in my case the local paper and the big city paper) and get something like 80-90% of my general news. I guess largely through the magic of syndication. When someone shared a story with me, it was physically clipped, no paywall. And I get the impression that advertising was fairly effective. The attitude that is killing journalism is, IMHO, the publishers attitude that the world still operates the same way it did 40 years ago: buy a subscription to us and advertisements work. One of the big reasons I don't subscribe to, say NYT, is that in a given month there are only a few articles there that I seem to be reading. There are maybe 5-7 sources like that, and, when I'm honest with myself, my life isn't enriched by $100/mo subscribing to them. And advertisements just don't seem to work in today's world.
- linsomniac 2y ago
  For example: I do pay for The Guardian because they: - Don't paywall their articles. - They pop up a reminder that I've looked at X articles. - I can pay what I want (I probably average paying them around $1 or 2 per article I read).

jodacola 2y ago

Interesting thoughts. I can’t refute or support your assertions about the cause of journalism’s demise off hand, but I actually am very curious whether a publication could find success in a model where one could pay a nominal fee to access a give article (in addition to the normal subscription setup). I don’t pay for NYT. I don’t want to, because of the cancellation stories I see repeated. If I could pay $1 here and there to access an article, though? I’d do that. And NYT would get some money from me they aren’t getting now. Seems, maybe, worth it. I don’t know.

linsomniac 2y ago

I see the point you're making, but I'm not sure it's a fair assessment that my attitude is why journalism is dying. I'd almost go so far as to say we're making the same point. See, back in the "good olde days", I could subscribe to 1 or 2 sources of news (in my case the local paper and the big city paper) and get something like 80-90% of my general news. I guess largely through the magic of syndication. When someone shared a story with me, it was physically clipped, no paywall. And I get the impression that advertising was fairly effective. The attitude that is killing journalism is, IMHO, the publishers attitude that the world still operates the same way it did 40 years ago: buy a subscription to us and advertisements work. One of the big reasons I don't subscribe to, say NYT, is that in a given month there are only a few articles there that I seem to be reading. There are maybe 5-7 sources like that, and, when I'm honest with myself, my life isn't enriched by $100/mo subscribing to them. And advertisements just don't seem to work in today's world.

linsomniac 2y ago
For example: I do pay for The Guardian because they: - Don't paywall their articles. - They pop up a reminder that I've looked at X articles. - I can pay what I want (I probably average paying them around $1 or 2 per article I read).