341–350 of 468 posts
Didn't the NYT have the dark pattern of being one-click subscribe, yet made you fill forms and emails and physically call them to unsubscribe? (At least up until a few months ago, last I heard) Stuff like that is an absolute deal breaker and turns lots of users away from subscriptions entirely, before even talking about article/content quality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's better following individual journalists via twitter or whatever instead of the organization itself for quality content for subjects you like to read about. Personally, I use the main site just to scan headlines and see if there's anything interesting. Everyone's biased, but I don't think I'm more of an objective thinker than a trained journalist who's taken classes to study it and write about it specifically. I…
Maybe journalists should go out on their own via Patreon etc.?
Why would I pay for a media that humiliates me, writes biased articles and tells me that I am a bad person because my political views differ from theirs? I am actually kind of glad that the media landscape is changing, because they way it has been has been terrifying. I'm not american, so I can't speak for new york times but the layoffs in the shit-media that was buzzfeed and others like it is just good news. I'd rat…
I politically mostly agree with the NYT, but I can't stand their morale high ground with the continuous shaming of the other side of the aisle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Trump says he's on same page as intel chiefs after insulting them
Erin Burnett: Tapes don't lie, but Trump ...
Even some Republicans balk as Trump targets US spy chiefs
None of those would violate your criteria, but any reasonable person would say they are negative. At some point you just have to accept reality and stop expecting news outlets to bend over backwards trying to make it seem like both sides are the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm just incredibly baffled by what you're proposing the solution is if its not a cultural shift towards paying for content? In an exclusively programmatic ad based market, the only long term winning strategy is to write click-bait and fake news. We should all be extremely concerned about what the writer is getting at. If you're going to call it whining, and say they need to change their business model, what should t…
I think there are a couple of issues here. If we shift toward paying for content, is there not going to be a market for subscriptions to fake news as well as subscriptions to real news? Paying for content alone doesn't solve the problem of fake news. How does Joe Average even know which subscriptions are the right subscriptions? Please don't let an algorithm decide for them. In terms of payment itself, I feel the goi…
It doesn't solve fake news, except that subscriptions might keep the production of real news economically viable. Internet-ad revenue probably can't support real journalism at all. It's too labor intensive.
Real news is expensive to produce, you have to pay reporters to spend their time finding the facts; fake news is cheap, since lies can be made up in your pajamas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what makes you so sure that the BBC's handling of those stories isn't the correct one? Your personal bias, of course. We see in this thread many people who condemn newspapers because they report differently than they themselves would, and then have the gall to call that "bias".
The problem is not that they report differently, but that they fixate on a particular part of the whole picture, and emphasize it beyond all proportion, while neglecting other parts of the picture. It's like if you asked somebody to describe an elephant for you and they'd spend 99% of the time on its tail, describing it in a minute detail up to each hair on its end, and then spending only a couple of words on the res…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you but to be honest, 95% of the traditional medias decided to chose a camp after the 2016 elections. Since then It is extremely difficult to find a neutral news with clear facts. I distrust the NYT as much as I distrust Fox news.
Are you sure it is bias or justified criticism? From my POV, the "bias" always seems to me to be justifiable criticism of Trump. I mean, the man lies so frequently it's almost impossible to present "his side". I worry when I see these comments. They seem to make the same mistake that the BBC did when they presented equal time to climate change deniers as they did to climate change scientists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s true, but the other side may have good points in regards to other topics. If you ignore them altogether because they are a bit crazy in one regard (well, maybe a lot of regards), then you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Right, there is a nuance, but it's often lost today because newspapers want to appear "independent." They are so terrified of appearing partisan, it dilutes their coverage to nothingness, just covering both sides. It too often is: "Side A said X" "Side B said Y" Well, that's of no help to me. I could simply go to those PR pages myself and see what they said. So this is not about ignoring them, but about not giving eq…
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.
and as far as paying for ads, I find it absurd that anyone pays for cable tv anymore.
I do pay for news, however one request I have for news providers is a greater emphasis on presenting news from all sides. Over the last 4-5 years most news providers have picked a political side (to a much greater extent than I recall in the past). This is true in both countries for which I follow news (India and the US). Given an event I can predict the coverage that venues will give it. This is troubling to me, and…
Completely disagree. I want the facts, backed by people who know the situation. I do not want “fair and balanced.” Not all sides have equal grounding and I’m tired of this false equivalence. We are seriously in times where one side denies climate change. There is zero point in giving them time because it elevates their point to being equal to the one backed by actual climate scientists, not industry that has a vested…