5 ms·
They claim that the freely-available news sources are cannibalizing their ability to provide good journalism, but I find the free sources to be better than the
by TallGuyShort 17y ago
They claim that the freely-available news sources are cannibalizing their ability to provide good journalism, but I find the free sources to be better than the sources considering charging online traffic. News aggregators, blogs, etc... I use them all the time. New York Times? Maybe once in a while, but they're often biased and overdramatic.
- Maascamp 17y agoSo where do you think the news aggregators are aggregating their news from?
- TallGuyShort 17y agoI realize that somewhere somebody has to be doing the initial reporting, and that person needs to be paid, but with the amount of blogs and social networking that spreads news, I think it'll take a long time before a news aggregator can't supply a steady stream of decent news. All I'm saying is that if that ever does become unreliable, then I would gladly pay for a service. But right now, the services that are considering charging aren't offering anything unique (with the exception of say, Wall Street Journal, that kind of thing (niche markets, a need for super reliability, etc...)
- winanga 17y agoNew York Times isn't owned by News Corp, New York Post is. Incidentally, nytimes.com is the second most submitted domain on HN (http://top.searchyc.com/domains http://top.searchyc.com/domains)
- cema 17y ago"nytimes.com is the second most submitted domain on HN" -- perhaps, but the sample (HN audience) is remarkably different from the population in general.