Please Pay for Your News • Hacker News Board

Re: Please Pay for Your News

#61

Post by cy_hauser » Sun, May 31, 2020, 9:56 PM UTC

stupidboy wrote: post #44

mongol wrote: post #20

I would be prepared to pay per article. I am not eager to subscribe to any particular newspaper. I want to consume media "a la carte", not "all inclusive". Unfortunately, newspapers wants me to susbcribe and here we are.

You're looking for Blendle. It's pretty cool. https://launch.blendle.com/

Interesting but the wrong model for me. I'm looking for a Spotify/Netflix type solution. All the news in one place with annual payment for all I care to consume. Otherwise I have to think about each article and act to keep the costs in line.

Re: Please Pay for Your News

#62

Post by firefoxd » Sun, May 31, 2020, 9:57 PM UTC

I wish paying for news would actually make news organizations prosper. But subscription only slightly help. Looking at past revenue of the LA times, subscribers accounted for under 20% of revenue [1]. The remaining 80% was from advertising.

If we all subscribe to 3 or 4 papers right now, the best thing they can do for their business is bombard us with ads to make up for the remaining percentage. Well, we have adblockers now so it doesn't work.

I don't know what the solution is. Journalism that holds people accountable is crucial for society. But customers paying for the news doesn't work. It never did.

[1]: https://idiallo.com/blog/we-never-paid-for-journalism

Re: Please Pay for Your News

#63

Post by Myrmornis » Sun, May 31, 2020, 9:58 PM UTC

egonschiele wrote: post #24

vulcan01 wrote: post #17

To all of you here complaining about the ads on many news websites: Why not use an adblocker?

Seriously, reading the comments here is making me nauseous but I can't seem to stop. HN is the essence of privilege. Reporters are getting assaulted out there.

Maybe you could say what you're saying explicitly rather than implicitly?

Are you saying: we should enthusiastically consume advertising in contexts where it helps pay journalists?

Re: Please Pay for Your News

#64

Post by koheripbal » Sun, May 31, 2020, 10:04 PM UTC

mey wrote: post #25

I tried, except, everywhere I looked, they promoted Op-ed pieces with equal billing and authority as traditional investigative reporting. Washington Post, NY times seemed liked the "best" based on track record for investigative reporting on politics and international coverage (with a US focus) but I cancelled both after a year. Open to suggestions... Edit: Also NYTimes cancelation process is AOL levels of hostile. Th…

I find the Wall Street Journal (online) put Opinion pieces in a very subtle place - I almost never even notice them.

...and their journalists are top-notch. They don't publish unconfirmed reports, and I find that they challenge my preconceived notions regularly.

Re: Please Pay for Your News

#65

Post by na85 » Sun, May 31, 2020, 10:10 PM UTC

egonschiele wrote: post #55

na85 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention they still show me ads if I pay, which means I'm now paying them for the privilege of having ads I don't want shoved into my face and paying for the privilege of being tracked. No thanks.

You do understand that the news is one of the lowest profit industries, right? They showing you those ads just so they can stay afloat -- not so they can all buy yachts.

What does that matter? Advertising is repugnant. It's not my responsibility to support their unprofitable business model.

Re: Please Pay for Your News

#66

Post by egonschiele » Sun, May 31, 2020, 10:12 PM UTC

Myrmornis wrote: post #63

egonschiele wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, reading the comments here is making me nauseous but I can't seem to stop. HN is the essence of privilege. Reporters are getting assaulted out there.

Maybe you could say what you're saying explicitly rather than implicitly? Are you saying: we should enthusiastically consume advertising in contexts where it helps pay journalists?

Sure, I can be more explicit.

1. News is very important, especially today. None of us would have known what happened to George Floyd if a bystander hadn't been there to videotape it. That's what reporters do all day every day all over the world for a million other topics.

2. News is dying. Papers are barely breaking even, and with covid-19, plenty of papers have folded altogether.

3. News is a good example of tragedy of the commons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons). We all want it but no one wants to pay for it.

4. The HN crowd has a pretty high median income. I bet they can shell out the $11/month for a nytimes (or whatever) subscription. The Economist has a $1/week offer on right now. Washington Post has a $39/year offer I believe.

5. Despite all of this, the majority of comments here are bitching about the news and not wanting to pay for it. Why?

Re: Please Pay for Your News

#67

Post by pan69 » Sun, May 31, 2020, 10:13 PM UTC

mongol wrote: post #20

I would be prepared to pay per article. I am not eager to subscribe to any particular newspaper. I want to consume media "a la carte", not "all inclusive". Unfortunately, newspapers wants me to susbcribe and here we are.

Take a look at inkl.com

Re: Please Pay for Your News

#68

Post by egonschiele » Sun, May 31, 2020, 10:13 PM UTC

m463 wrote: post #52

egonschiele wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, reading the comments here is making me nauseous but I can't seem to stop. HN is the essence of privilege. Reporters are getting assaulted out there.

But "advertising" today is a twisted caricature of sponsorship models of years ago. Advertising, like "location services" has become a two-way surveillance system. I would love to be able to have a system of payment where we could pay a small amount of money for high-quality journalism? (and do it actually anonymously)

Unless someone kickstarts a system like that, which would be insanely high startup cost with insanely high risk, the way to actually get to what you are talking about is for a lot more people to pay for the news, so eventually they can stop relying on advertising.

Re: Please Pay for Your News

#69

Post by _ofdw » Sun, May 31, 2020, 10:14 PM UTC

nicharesuk wrote: post #26

na85 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unbiased news does not exist. To get a good appreciation for the real "ground truth", one must accept bias exists and seek several opinions on a given issue, from different outlets or sources.

Sure, I think I would be happier trying to find a pay for a news source that focuses more on synthesizing information. Obviously there is no unbiased anything (#1 of my list is explaining exactly that). What I'm looking for are sources that intentionally try to get all sides of the issue, what are those sources? Obviously reading NPR/Forbes/Guardian are not really those kinds of sources in many cases.

The problem with getting "all sides of the issue" is that that process itself is highly susceptible to bias. If there was an article about vaccines, should the news organization solicit opinions from antivaxxers? These are mostly uneducated fools who reject scientific consensus because it makes them feel a modicum of control, not because their anti-vaccine stance has any medical or societal merit whatsoever. Where does the value in seeking "all sides of the issue" come from?

Re: Please Pay for Your News

#70

Post by egonschiele » Sun, May 31, 2020, 10:15 PM UTC

na85 wrote: post #65

egonschiele wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do understand that the news is one of the lowest profit industries, right? They showing you those ads just so they can stay afloat -- not so they can all buy yachts.

What does that matter? Advertising is repugnant. It's not my responsibility to support their unprofitable business model.

Right, but what I'm saying is this is the best choice we have right now. You are trying to choose a fantasy choice that does not exist. You current choices are:

1. Let the news die.

2. Pay for the news, suck up the fact that it has advertising.

3. Don't pay for the news and hope the rest of us pay for it so it doesn't die.

Your "option 4: news without advertising" does not exist. It may in the future, but only if ENOUGH OF US PAY FOR A SUBSCRIPTION SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO RELY ON ADVERTISING.