You're viewing a single thread.
I agree with the sentiment, but I'm not sure how to make it work. Journalists need to make a living, but if it's distributed free, where's that money going to come from?
damn if only we could subsidize journalism instead of oil and meat
oh well i guess
We could but that brings its own moral issues. Can you trust a journalist to be truthful and critical of a government that signs their paycheque?
with sufficient legislation, sure. Do you inherently distrust NPR?
Inherently? No. But part of that is due to the fact that there are other organizations with other motives and funding sources to compare with.
Agreed. We got used to free stuff online, but the reality was that you paid for news for the longest time (except the evening news on network TV).
Easy. Just track the readers' data without their knowledge nor consent and sell it to the highest bidder. Also, don't pay your journalists anyway for double profit.
The thing for me is that there are too many (essentially all) news portals, who are doing this individually which brings the reader into the conflict of "what should I pay for?". Hands down, I'm not consuming one news paper and that's it. In Germany here, I've got about 5 which immediately come to my mind and then some more internationally. Every portal wants 3-5 euro/dollar/whatever from me per month, which is not manageable.
What we need - in my opinion - is the possibility for a specific subscription bundle. I'd be happy to pay for my news for a manageable amount and payment. Let it be 15 euro per month for x free to chose papers and I won't even think twice, because yes! These guys need to be paid too and I'd love to give them their deserved payment.
But this situation we've got here? All over the world? No wonder, online archives are thriving.
Journalists made a living before paywalls
People used to pay for physical newspapers, and TV journalists were paid for by ads. Ads were unskippable, and companies would pay more for them because of it.
Yet you pay the paywall fee and there are still ads, and you talk about the lack of funds to pay journalists while the Murdochs and other media families live it up, richer than kings.
Yet you pay the paywall fee and there are still ads,
Not on any of my computers. Ad companies know this and pay accordingly.
and you talk about the lack of funds to pay journalists while the Murdochs and other media families live it up, richer than kings.
That's got nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a theoretical world where consuming the product created by journalists is free. Where would the money to pay journalists come from? Are the ads preferred? I know I'm never going to be disabling my ad blocker. Is it a government subsidy?
Basically, I'm talking about what should be, not what currently is.
Am I going to see ads if I pay for this news?? I mean, I'm not because ad blockers, but still, I've never paid for news online. When you do, are there still ads?
The missed irony is in an article criticising paywalls, on a webpage that asks for your information to access it