81–90 of 503 posts
Lies are not free, they are paid by ads and a complete industry is built on keeping this going. The price of the ads are built into the price of the product/service you buy, so we are basically paying for the lies too, it’s just not as obvious as paying to get through the paywall.
In Germany, part of the problem is that old media lobbying has successfully prevented a reasonable (text based) internet presence of public broadcasting... Some Google-translated coverage: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...
[1]: https://www.die-medienanstalten.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Rec... in §11
I just want Netflix for journalism. I don't want a super expensive sub to a dozen papers. I want one subscription, they all should be included (maybe offer different tiers if you are an arse) and it shouldn't be more than $20/month. Go.
Anyway, you've described a cable bundle model, not Netflix's model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
is CNN really putting up anything except news - of which reuters/AP/UPI already give a pretty good overview for free? And while all the left/neoliberal (and clickbaity) things you noted are free, they are less concerned with news, but more opinion – to my knowledge they don't try to make the impression of a news outlet as much as the listed ones (which carry typical news-speak even in their name!)
All those sites look like news sites to me, except the Atlantic, which is indeed limited to opinion/commentary. Salon's About page: "Salon covers breaking news, politics, entertainment, culture, and technology through investigative reporting, commentary, criticism, and provocative personal essays." A few titles from their site: -As pandemic spreads, feds go MIA -Did Steve Daines get pharma kickback? -The second pande…
vox.com: "Vox explains the news.". No shroud of being objective here either. q.e.d.
slate.com: "we are a general-interest publication offering analysis and commentary about politics, news, business, technology, and culture" general interest is vague, but no non-commented news here either, q.e.d.
the root has a category "news", but if you visit their main page you see, it's just a sort of "community news-ticker" (like any political page has) and I don't see them making claims to universality.
Compare that to Breitbart mingling everything there is into their political agend and explicitly stating: "truthful reporting", ... , "Breitbart News is one of America’s leading news organizations."
leaves the huffpost which is laughable by design.
I just want Netflix for journalism. I don't want a super expensive sub to a dozen papers. I want one subscription, they all should be included (maybe offer different tiers if you are an arse) and it shouldn't be more than $20/month. Go.
Lies are not free, they are paid by ads and a complete industry is built on keeping this going. The price of the ads are built into the price of the product/service you buy, so we are basically paying for the lies too, it’s just not as obvious as paying to get through the paywall.
They are free for consumers
> Now, I am sure there will be those who argue that any universal knowledge access system of this kind will inhibit the creation of new work by reducing the rewards people get. But let us note a few facts: first, dead people cannot be incentivized to be creative, thus at least everything ever created by a person who is now dead should be made freely available to all. The gatekeepers to intellectual products made by t…