You must log in or register to comment.
credible, fact-based information for people who are willing to pay for it
Some exceptions may apply, such as for example the NYT (and other so-called credible outlets) being basically a mouthpiece for cops and the Israeli government in the vast majority of relevant articles.
Examples:
They’ve still not retracted their blatant propaganda piece "Screams Without Words
As for copaganda, it’s a general epidemic with the NYT in specific consistently using the passive voice when talking about crimes by cops
bruhh
The only model of journalism that works is public funded/donated.
We need something similar for print media, that isn’t just transcriptions of PBS/NPR segments.
A big issue here is that NPR/PBS sources a lot of their journalism from outlets such as Propublica or Bellingcat for national/international stories while relying on local affiliate stations to fill in the gap.
As local journalism dies, NPR and PBS have less places to source from. This is a big issue for democracy and something we need to solve.
The only model of journalism that works is public funded/donated.
Not really.
Some of the best journalism is done by random joe’s with a camera.
(Yes, you may face this very dilemma reading this story in The Atlantic.)
It’s the good advice that you just didn’t take
Figures
Right before it cuts out? This was engineered to be ironic/hypocritical
It’s the good advice that you just didn’t take
And who would’ve thought? It figures.
This might be a bit “yelling into the void” but the Atlantic can complain about how a subscription based model is awful for news literacy while also being financially compelled into that same model. I mentioned in my other comment that Canada (partially) fixed this issue but it took government intervention… the papers can’t solve this problem on their own.
We can’t see their argument though… but yes, I get it.
What did Canada do to improve things?
I mentioned it over here https://sh.itjust.works/comment/10888414
Now you’re faced with that old dilemma: to pay or not to pay. (Yes, you may face this very dilemma reading this story in The Atlantic.)
At least they’re self aware.
https://archive.ph/yu3mr for the lazy
To read this story sign in or start a free trial…
There’s a weird economic issue here but one that Canada (yay Canada) managed to solve.
Reaggregaters
The ecosystem of online advertising is an absolute cesspool but papers were managing to eek by until FB and Google News just completely destroyed the number of page loads that news organizations received. Google News and Amp should be fucking illegal for just existing parasitically on top of actual content creators and eating all their earnings and FB should be repeatedly fined whenever they allow posts of full news articles on their website and fail to take them down in a timely manner.
You should not be allowed to scrape someone else’s work and monetize it if there is no creative modification involved - I’m pretty baffled the US government hasn’t come down hard on this bullshit yet.
Our congress has always been, and our courts now are an auction rather than a democracy
Yep.
Archive
That’s where you’re wrong, kiddo
I know of smaller media with far less resources and audience that somehow manage to be profitable without paywalls, so I’d find it hard to believe that the major sites paywalling their articles are doing it for anything other than the stubborness of shareholders, CEOs and executives thinking they can always milk the cow some more.
What sort of content are those smaller media publishing?
In theory the NYT is one of the last sites heavily finding investigative journalism and deeper reporting, not just repackaging stories mixed with a little local coverage.
I don’t really know how true that is, but there can be way different levels of journalism.
It’s all about maximizing profit.
Useful idiots will never understand or acknowledge this.
So do fluff opinion pieces apparently
* scrolls down *
Definitely problematic to balance having to pay for news, especially for people that hardly consume it, and getting important information out to people.
The fact that that article is itself behind a paywall is some weapons grade irony that The Onion wishes it thought of.
They even mention in the article, just above the cut, that they’re afraid this article will get paywalled lol
And below the cut, that they’re aware of the irony, but surely people who pay for journalism can see why journalism is important, which is like… good point, I guess. Sometimes the system sucks and we have to work with what we have.
Basmanny Court: reality or The Onion
