291–300 of 345 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Wall St. Journal is the single highest quality news source I'm aware of.
The economist is the only other news source that I know of that is on par.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist#Editorial_anonym...:
Is there any truth to that?
Tangent: I'm not sure I can think of recent money I've spent better than a year-long Washington Post subscription. Not because I want to support journalism (though I do), but because having a whole newspaper to flip through every day is so much more productive and efficient than getting dribs and drabs through Twitter and free news sites --- many of which are ultimately sourcing through the journalism that organizati…
StratFor (for example) seems maybe worth it but I feel like the generalist reach and short form style of big news stops it from ever truly educating. I guess what I'm trying to say here is OK, the experience might be more pleasant, but what makes you think WaPo / Guardian / NYT content is even comparably as good as a blogger dedicated to the topic? (honest question to anyone)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are aware that you probably consume other valuable goods and services from companies whose CEOs are just as deplorable, but not as well publicized, right? If you think a product is valuable, but you don't want to pay for it because you don't like the person selling it that makes you a retributive thief. You don't even have ideology to hide behind, you just don't like someone.
Being a thief requires theft. The GP didn't discuss stealing.
http://www.copyhype.com/2013/09/why-copyright-infringement-i...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To lower the barrier even further, if you're an Amazon Prime subscriber and subscribe via Amazon, the first 6 months are free and then the cost is $4/month thereafter.
Maybe this doesn't count as supporting, but: you also get free access with a .edu, .gov, or .mil email address.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but it gives me great hope that quality news organizations have a future I hope that high quality news organizations do have a future, but the WaPo? I'm not sure that label fits.
Why do you say that? Their political coverage and some of their deep-dive investigative pieces have been top drawer IMO.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/23/...
You'll note that the two stories are directly contradictory. The claim made by the WaPo is stronger than Senator Sanders' and yet Senator Sanders received 4 Pinocchios for the claim.
I also like FAIR's analysis of the WaPo's opinion leanings (though it leaks over to supposed factual reporting too): http://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the equivalent of reading a magazine in the bookstore and not buying it. It would be different if you walked out the store without paying.
I don't they're the same at all. In your example if you walk out of the store with the magazine the store has to cover the cost of the magazine. If you stay in the store and read it then the content provider didn't get paid for someone consuming their content however the magazine is still there. The store could still sell it. The l.php script basically allows someone to read the magazine without paying for it. The on…
What do they lose?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but it gives me great hope that quality news organizations have a future I hope that high quality news organizations do have a future, but the WaPo? I'm not sure that label fits.
Why do you say that? Their political coverage and some of their deep-dive investigative pieces have been top drawer IMO.
https://sputniknews.com/us/201612081048298376-washington-pos...
It's lies like that that legitimize Trump in the eyes of his followers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Wall St. Journal is the single highest quality news source I'm aware of.
They dropped in quality sharply when Murdoch acquired them, and fired a big chunk of the team. Then they started focusing on offensive conservative propaganda on their editorial page. At that point I stopped reading or paying attention to them. Frankly, I welcome the news about the paywall since it will mean I see fewer links to their "journalism". Has something changed in the last few years? Did they somehow turn th…
This was one I read recently that actually made a good job of covering the real story in detail: http://blogs.wsj.com/indonesiarealtime/2013/08/26/the-strike...
I see in the comments there are still some workarounds to this paywall. Good to know. Cheers. Just a reminder another workaround to the paywall is to you know actually subscribe to the newspaper. That is an option they offer. Obviously not possible for everyone. But if you have the money and want to read and support journalism... WSJ is really far from perfect but it's not the worst newspaper one could be subscribed…
I don't think it's smart to pay to read stuff from a group that also gets money from advertisers. You're either the product or the customer, when in doubt you'll be the product. Real subscription journalism doesn't do advertising.