mean_jean

4 ms·

1.
by mean_jean 7y ago
It's still relevant. Lots of people still want the traditional long form, it's just that the old business model for delivering it doesn't work anymore, and people (reasonably) don't understand why they should pay for som
2.
by mean_jean 7y ago
Also how is a paywall a "dark pattern"? If you don't care to consume the content, don't subscribe, it's very straightforward. And there is demand. People want the product they just don't want to pay for it, bec
3.
by mean_jean 7y ago
I appreciate that, it's encouraging to hear. But the cost has proven to be more than the current market will bare. Or maybe we just haven't figured out how to ask people for money the right way, but attempts have been made. As one
4.
by mean_jean 7y ago
The commodity information you get from social media is not the same thing as investigative reporting that takes months of research, public records requests, shoe leather reporting, data analysis and interviews to uncover corruption in gover
5.
by mean_jean 7y ago
Does that mean you're willing to pay for the journalism if it doesn't have ads? So far that model hasn't worked either. Or are you saying you would rather the reporting didn't exist than it be supported by ads you find d
6.
by mean_jean 7y ago
It is truly a desperate situation and we need every revenue stream we can ethically tolerate. If we could afford not to do it we would (also "no extra work" is not trivial - we'd rather spend our precious dollars on reporters
7.
by mean_jean 7y ago
I don't have the solution but I don't think state-subsidized is it. It's a conflict of interest when the people you're trying to hold accountable are the ones writing your paycheck. Congress (usually the members unhappy
8.
by mean_jean 7y ago
I'm a coder journalists. I could make a lot more outside of journalism but I believe in the mission as do the traditional journalists. We don't just like having jobs - we do it because our democracy and society wouldn't work