91–100 of 246 posts
I get that you have to make money somehow but if you put out 1 thing I'm interested in per year its not worth a subscription for me.
An article worth reading is worth buying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PSA: (National) Newspapers incite rage for clicks and revenue generation, and serve as a propagandizing arm for our beloved 3 letter agencies. Their services are essential for ensuring the success of our neoconservative war hawks in Washington to continue to fund their war machine with hundreds of billions of dollars while neglecting more pressing matters like our nation's crumbling infrastructure and completely unaf…
This doesn't really hold up in a conversation about paywalls. Clickbate generated ad revenues isn't typically from sites funded by subscriptions. Subscriptions actually help fight that.
I’m tired of the “good news is worth paying for” argument. I don’t disagree with that idea, but I think it’s time for a lot of the mainstream news organizations that people suggest I pay for to die. They had their time, things have changed, and they are failing to adapt. Let’s try something new.
An article worth reading is worth buying.
Except the industry is stuck in 1995. You want to pay $50/yr [1] for twenty different news websites? All I want to do is read one article. It needs a Spotify / Netflix model. Or the promise of micropayments that never happened. (Yeah, I'll pay 10 cents for an article. And also learn to distrust your site if you shill clickbait.) [1] NYT digital cost
* Pay per article incentivizes click-bait trash.
* Subscriptions soloed content, incentivize anger as a service, fearmongering, and addictive practices.
* Ads incentivize both.
The ideal news source for the reader is one designed to minimize its use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh man; I was going to support the GP post, but then I remembered what unsubscribing from The Economist was like, and my mouth is filed with Bile & my brain is filled with pure sheer hate.
They made it so difficult to unsub, I just waited until the credit card expired. I vowed never to pay for a news subscription again. Big mistake.
If the only way these ailing news orgs* can survive is by being manipulative jerks to people trying to stop paying them, then let them burn.
* Neither the Economist nor the Times is ailing
PSA: Newspapers educate the public, and their services are essential for the functioning of our democracies. The best newspapers fund their operations through subscriptions, so please help society become well-informed by subscribing to your favorite newspapers.
PSA: (National) Newspapers incite rage for clicks and revenue generation, and serve as a propagandizing arm for our beloved 3 letter agencies. Their services are essential for ensuring the success of our neoconservative war hawks in Washington to continue to fund their war machine with hundreds of billions of dollars while neglecting more pressing matters like our nation's crumbling infrastructure and completely unaf…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't say if the NYT are villains or not, but if they are, you might have better luck convincing people if your only data point wasn't from literally decades ago
To be fair the war lasted up until a couple of months ago.
Would you go into a store, pick up the newspaper, and walk out without paying?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I pay for NYT, but I can't subscribe to the paper of every article I want to read. I need some kind of group subscription for it to be feasible.
Ah, the NYT that helped justify the US invasion of Iraq based on falsehoods? That NYT? Edit: Explanation - the "I subscribe to the NYT" as a pat response to funding news sources puts far too much power in the NYT's hands, and they've proven to be less than trustworthy in the past.
The vast majority of the reporting from NYT is good, and I don't rely on them exclusively. They're just the only written news source I pay for.