81–90 of 141 posts
The "Free News" model is certainly something I've struggled to solve. How exactly can you provide impartial, objective reporting when you cant afford the salaries? If the people arent interested in paying... what else can you do?
The "Free News" model is certainly something I've struggled to solve. How exactly can you provide impartial, objective reporting when you cant afford the salaries? If the people arent interested in paying... what else can you do?
It’s unfortunate we haven’t solved the micro-payment problem. Crypto was an obvious solution but anything would require a hefty network effect. But imagine like a starbucks card or whatever you have your micropayment card, and it auto reloads when it hits zero with 20 bucks or whatever. When you visit the times, a modal pops up, “This article costs $0.02. Read it? y/n or $1 for a day pass”. Sure pirates will get arou…
See this sounds excellent to me. In order to make it work for the boardroom though, it'd be more like $0.50/article or $0.99 for "breaking news".
I can imagine the math being roughly "Divide the monthly cost by the amount of articles an average user reads per month. Now slide it up to look round"
Maybe I'm being cynical, but I think the economics would break down pretty quick, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't try to be "objective" or "impartial." That's an impossible task, and anyone claiming to do so is being dishonest. Instead, own your biases. Make them explicit and public. That way people can understand were you're coming from, and take that into account. There will always be bias in any reporting. It's better to make it visible than to pretend it doesn't exist. This means having a clear perspective and "owning"…
Anyone claiming that they are trying to be impartial is being dishonest?
The "Free News" model is certainly something I've struggled to solve. How exactly can you provide impartial, objective reporting when you cant afford the salaries? If the people arent interested in paying... what else can you do?
Most people can't afford to do that, so they pick a proxy from among the many individuals that do the work of sorting and filtering and comparing and validating news from a wide spectrum.
Some proxies are decent, some are not, and come with their own biases and skew.
The solution is high intelligence local AI that maintains a world model for you, providing you with updates based on your interests and cross-validated world events, with a rigorous record of sources and reliability. Anything short of that is just repackaged proxy games.
On the plus side, Asmongold or Hasan Piker are the low bar to beat. Haha. People are so well informed and educated now that they have access to the interwebs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't try to be "objective" or "impartial." That's an impossible task, and anyone claiming to do so is being dishonest. Instead, own your biases. Make them explicit and public. That way people can understand were you're coming from, and take that into account. There will always be bias in any reporting. It's better to make it visible than to pretend it doesn't exist. This means having a clear perspective and "owning"…
Anyone arguing for “owning your bias” is trying to justify using media to influence instead of inform. We can never be perfectly unbiased, but we can certainly try. We dedicated entire higher education programs to the process of doing exactly that — it was called journalism.
Rather, I'm saying you should acknowledge that you are influenced and will influence, and be explicit about what those influences are. This is the only way to actually combat bias; not by eliminating bias, but by making it visible, so it can be accounted for with everyone's thinking.
The "Free News" model is certainly something I've struggled to solve. How exactly can you provide impartial, objective reporting when you cant afford the salaries? If the people arent interested in paying... what else can you do?
Wait, I never understood why we need "intrepid reporters" hired by a certain company to enter a war zone, for instance. Everyone has cameras now. They're ubiquitous. What we really need is collaboration online to make sense of the footage being uploaded. And the same for any kind of news. Why do we need the capitalist model again? Look at Wikipedia, Linux, open source software, and more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone arguing for “owning your bias” is trying to justify using media to influence instead of inform. We can never be perfectly unbiased, but we can certainly try. We dedicated entire higher education programs to the process of doing exactly that — it was called journalism.
I'm not saying that media should be used to influence instead of inform. Rather, I'm saying you should acknowledge that you are influenced and will influence, and be explicit about what those influences are. This is the only way to actually combat bias; not by eliminating bias, but by making it visible, so it can be accounted for with everyone's thinking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone claiming that they are trying to be impartial is being dishonest?
You can't be impartial; everyone has their own sets of biases that they can't get around. These are sometimes obvious, sometimes not, but they're always there. It's not necessarily intentionally dishonest to say you're impartial, but it fundamentally is dishonest to claim you're capable of the impossible.
1. Not lied about my goal
2. Accomplished something similar to my goal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...is there a difference? The donors tend to have just as much of an agenda to push
It might also be the case that one single "donor" puts in like 60% of the budget. But that is also no different from one single client being 60% of your revenue. In both cases, they'll be calling some shots.
Even if your 60% guy owns a pharmaceutical company, he might even be happier to push reporting on the problems with other pharmaceutical companies.