4 ms·
I would definitely not. The pricing is outrageous when you consider that I'll read at most a few articles per year from an individual source. And at least the N
by bachmeier 1y ago
I would definitely not. The pricing is outrageous when you consider that I'll read at most a few articles per year from an individual source. And at least the NYT is a borderline scam organization with how much more difficult it is to unsubscribe than it is to subscribe.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- giancarlostoro 1y agoTry ground news? It aggregates everything about a particular story shows you all sides. Even has a low tier at $2.99 a month. I knew of another one that lets you subscribe to a bunch of papers for a lower price point but I forgot the name of it.
- rz2k 1y agoI think “balance” is a flawed goal, when what people actually need to interpret the news is context. Since their methodology is almost certainly based on heuristics rather than an editor with any underlying philosophy or education, these sites that try to show things from all sides can end up being just another level of obfuscation rather than contributing toward understanding.
- xp84 1y agoBut does Ground News also let you read the articles?? Like from the NYT for example.