111–120 of 127 posts
1. Propaganda. In the word’s original sense, as The Bible.
2. Cheaply-produced, high-cost status indicia / devices for separating fools from their money, a/k/a Papal Indulgences.
In the ensuing 568 years, nobody’s come up with an alternative business model, modulo rounding errors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would not call Reuters neutral. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters
Gee, I'd always considered Reuters and AP to be as close to neutral press as there is. Who is neutral if not Reuters?
Which means the right thinks Reuters is left.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my very personal opinion, based on the New York Times this isn't necessarily a good thing. Yes they cater to their subscribers but that's made them batshit crazy in their coverage. (and Fox is just as bad, but its not an online publication for the sake of my point)
the same with npr, a crumbling sheen of objectivity thinly veiling increasingly blatant partisanship. there is value in curation, as demonstrated by subscriptions (or 'donations'), but these outlets have lost sight of that value in the quest to ever-more-desperately shape public opinion while retaining relevance. they've slid down the slippery slope from objective(-ish) curation to the coercive variety and have no on…
> The customer always gets what they want: In the case of an ads-driven business model where the advertiser is the true customer, that’s balanced political news alongside frivolous lifestyle stories as a canvas for ads. In the case of subscribers, it’s being flattered by having their own worldviews echoed back at themselves in more articulate form. Nobody actually pays for news, unless your livelihood depends on it, which is why outlets like The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg will still flourish, but nothing vaguely resembling news will otherwise remain in a subscription-driven world.
Source: https://www.thepullrequest.com/p/twilight-of-the-media-elite...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gee, I'd always considered Reuters and AP to be as close to neutral press as there is. Who is neutral if not Reuters?
Reuters is quite neutral. Which means the right thinks Reuters is left.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my very personal opinion, based on the New York Times this isn't necessarily a good thing. Yes they cater to their subscribers but that's made them batshit crazy in their coverage. (and Fox is just as bad, but its not an online publication for the sake of my point)
the same with npr, a crumbling sheen of objectivity thinly veiling increasingly blatant partisanship. there is value in curation, as demonstrated by subscriptions (or 'donations'), but these outlets have lost sight of that value in the quest to ever-more-desperately shape public opinion while retaining relevance. they've slid down the slippery slope from objective(-ish) curation to the coercive variety and have no on…
Top five or so stories of the day with a few lines of detail so you can understand what happened and why it's important, focusing on the actual events, not the narratives around them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the same with npr, a crumbling sheen of objectivity thinly veiling increasingly blatant partisanship. there is value in curation, as demonstrated by subscriptions (or 'donations'), but these outlets have lost sight of that value in the quest to ever-more-desperately shape public opinion while retaining relevance. they've slid down the slippery slope from objective(-ish) curation to the coercive variety and have no on…
The problem articulated by Antonio Garcia-Martinez: > The customer always gets what they want: In the case of an ads-driven business model where the advertiser is the true customer, that’s balanced political news alongside frivolous lifestyle stories as a canvas for ads. In the case of subscribers, it’s being flattered by having their own worldviews echoed back at themselves in more articulate form. Nobody actually p…
the news industry is roughly $100B in the US (depending on how you define it). as a thought experiment, maybe we could give each of our 330M residents $300/year (~10% of the military budget) to spend on any news source, and only news sources, and preclude other forms of revenue for the industry. that'd make journalism directly accountable to the entirety of the population rather than just to moneyed interests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not just offer a preview (headline and first paragraph) and pay a small fee per article; maybe something like a quarter? They could also include an unlimited tier for avid readers. A decade ago this model would probably be a non-starter because it would require the inconvenience of maintaining an account everywhere and going through an awkward checkout flow for every transaction. SSO payment providers make this a…
That is the micropayments problem. You have to make it easy enough, like taking a quarter out of your pocket, for people to actually do it. And low enough fee where it's worth it. I believe most micro transaction providers still charge at least a flat 10c fee, which is a hefty portion of any micropayment.
vested interests will celebrate and put more money towards warping the minds of people (edit, just to be clear, I’m not excluding myself here)
Although it's regrettable that Reuters' content will be harder to access, it's a positive trend for the news ecosystem to generate increasing revenue through a subscription-based business model rather than selling ads. The more money that comes from subscriptions, the more that news coverage will reflect the interests of subscribers rather than advertisers.
In my very personal opinion, based on the New York Times this isn't necessarily a good thing. Yes they cater to their subscribers but that's made them batshit crazy in their coverage. (and Fox is just as bad, but its not an online publication for the sake of my point)