Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing • Hacker News Board

Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

#331

Post by normal_man » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 2:43 PM UTC

warp_factor wrote: post #324

I cannot think of a single mainstream provider that is worth paying for nowadays. What I would like is some neutral fact based news. Without titles implying that one side is better than the other. (If you want an example, open CNN and read any headline about Trump). Such a Fact based news organization doesn't exist anymore. Ever since the 2016 elections, each outlet had to dig deeper into their partisan trenches. Sin…

I mean, you can be non-partisan and objective and STILL write "negative" headlines about Trump, because so much of what he does is hateful, baffling or otherwise negative.

Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

#332

Post by sneeze-slayer » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 2:44 PM UTC

0x445442 wrote: post #280

beaconstudios wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that arguably is another form of political bias - if I want to push position A, I will choose the most ridiculous and deranged proponent of position B to imply that "all rational people choose position A". Like on the issue of climate change - there's clearly some fraction of people who choose to deny it completely, but the more meaningful debate at this point is around how much we can do to prevent it, and what appr…

There are credible scientists who disagree with the climate change narrative. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them "nut jobs" or "deniers" or any other label you care to attach. Equating folks who don't agree with a lot of climate change assertions with flat earthers is not productive in any way. And I agree with you're analysis; legacy media typically trot out straw men only to signal how superio…

It almost doesn't matter what a few credible scientists think about climate change--it maters what the overall consensus agree is and what most climate scientists believe. A huge part of science as a field is consensus.

Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

#333

Post by beaconstudios » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 2:45 PM UTC

bzbarsky wrote: post #320

beaconstudios wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but you've just proved the point - the industry has shifted in favour of high tech over blue collar. I'm willing to bet that the disparity wasn't the same in the Bush era. I don't personally think it's a conspiracy - as I said, I believe that we need to attempt to counteract anthropomorphic climate change. But the evidence does bear the idea out. The idea that Republicans are all just morons is cancerous as fuck. And…

For what it's worth, most of the jobs "in solar" are installers. Very much blue collar (also, fairly dangerous work). Agreed with the rest of your points.

yes you do raise a great point actually. I think my mental model for the fuel economy shift is moving from red geographies to blue geographies (with innovation occurring inside universities and cleantech startups, and the majority of solar panels being installed in bluer states) but you're right in that there's still plenty of blue collar work involved.

Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

#334

Post by dirtylowprofile » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 2:45 PM UTC

Last year I subscribed to both NY Times and Wired. But when I tried to cancel, I was taken into a chat with a NY Times representative. Why is not that easy to unsubscribe with just a click of the button.

Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

#335

Post by warp_factor » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 2:46 PM UTC

Zecar wrote: post #322

Want to get people to pay for the real thing? Offer it instead of pushing agendas and narratives and telling people what to think.

Exactly. What we need is:

- Fact based journalism.

- A clear list of sources that we can check ourselves.

- No biases in the choices of titles in order to sell a predefined narrative.

- No ads in order to keep outside interests of dictating narratives.

Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

#336

Post by Nasrudith » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 2:47 PM UTC

RhysU wrote: post #130

ssnistfajen wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYT's feature stories often seamlessly weave in certain choices of words that reflect the author's personal bias/ignorance. It's like enjoying a decent dessert then suddenly chewing on a piece of fingernail in it. Even WSJ doesn't really have this problem.

The WSJ pleasantly keeps its editorial content on the editorial pages. The NYT thinks all pages are editorial pages. Note this is different from choosing what to print. Both papers do that.

I think the WSJ used to do that - before Murdoch purchased it. Now the "non-editorial" show he apparently breaks out in a cold sweat whenever sexual harassment comes up judging by the concern trolling and his ocerwhelming blonde anchor bias, openly acts like whistleblowers are big business bullying innocent comoanies, lobbyists are underdog small businesses, and the editorial writers are frothing at the mouth declaring well tested concepts are new and dangerously radical.

Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

#337

Post by jasonvorhe » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 2:48 PM UTC

Then give me a subscription model where I can access content from x, y and z for a fixed fee. If I need multiple accounts and subscriptions, I couldn't care less.

It's that simple.

Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

#338

Post by glup » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 2:50 PM UTC

nemacol wrote: post #313

I signed up for NYT and canceled the next day. After becoming a paying customer they do not remove the ads from apps, pop ups on the website, etc etc. I was annoyed so I decided to cancel. The cancellation process was also quite annoying. Couldn't just do it through a form, I had to chat or call. I was on hold in the chat room for 35 minutes before someone got on and asked me what I wanted. At that point I was quite…

I believe https://app.nytimes.com is ad free for subscribers (tablet-friendly version of the day's paper).

Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

#339

Post by cepth » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 2:51 PM UTC

bovermyer wrote: post #330

nemacol wrote: post #313

I signed up for NYT and canceled the next day. After becoming a paying customer they do not remove the ads from apps, pop ups on the website, etc etc. I was annoyed so I decided to cancel. The cancellation process was also quite annoying. Couldn't just do it through a form, I had to chat or call. I was on hold in the chat room for 35 minutes before someone got on and asked me what I wanted. At that point I was quite…

The problem is that newspapers still make the majority of their income from advertising. This is why ads still appear after you're subscribed and logged in to their websites. Shifting to a subscription-only revenue model is not an easy proposition, and requires a huge adjustment that most newspapers are not yet ready to make. Source: I used to work for a major regional newspaper.

Condé Nast seems to have figured out a workable majority-subscription revenue model.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/conde-nast-to-put-all-titles-be...

> “The New Yorker, which introduced a metered paywall in late 2014, generated about $115 million in paid-subscription revenue in 2018, up 69% from 2015, people familiar with the matter said. That revenue includes consumers who subscribed to the digital and print editions, although subscribers today no longer have the option of subscribing solely to the print magazine. The New Yorker’s regular renewal price for a print and digital bundle is moving to $149 a year from $119. The magazine will publish 47 issues this year.”

Granted, there’s a big difference between publishing 47 issues of long form writing a year, and 365 issues of a much longer daily-reported newspaper.

EDIT: not to mention that the Times and other big newspapers probably see themselves as informing the public discourse. It probably wouldn’t fly to put general newspapers behind a paywall, though the FT has greatly increased profitability with this strategy.

Re: Want to Stop Fake News? Pay for the Real Thing

#340

Post by warp_factor » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 2:52 PM UTC

normal_man wrote: post #331

warp_factor wrote: post #324

I cannot think of a single mainstream provider that is worth paying for nowadays. What I would like is some neutral fact based news. Without titles implying that one side is better than the other. (If you want an example, open CNN and read any headline about Trump). Such a Fact based news organization doesn't exist anymore. Ever since the 2016 elections, each outlet had to dig deeper into their partisan trenches. Sin…

I mean, you can be non-partisan and objective and STILL write "negative" headlines about Trump, because so much of what he does is hateful, baffling or otherwise negative.

That's where I disagree. taking a negative stance on Trump IS taking a side.

What I would like is for the journalist to report the fact and let us reader chose if it is negative or positive.

The facts can include the views of external people giving their views on it (as long as it is clearly documented in the sources that it is the views of someone external). But if the journalist himself takes a side, then all bets are lost.