Nah, absolutely not. Putting a profit incentive on the news is how we end up with how the news currently is - reaction-bait with the sole purpose of driving engagement and views to generate ad revenue, instead of actual, unbiased, honest journalism.
Not paying for the news is quite literally how we have found ourselves in this situation. When more were paying for the news they were less dependent on ad dollars and more on subscribers. The shift towards free news with the popularization of the web is what created our problem.
I wouldn’t say it was just that. News also got worse on e.g. government supported TV channels in countries that have them. Part of the problem is the regurgitation of social media on the news and also news organizations being afraid of social media backlash. Another part is politicians not giving interviews to organizations that ask them hard questions, that one was probably better in the past because there were more limited numbers of news sources.
If you want narrow readership. Or a society that bases its current events knowledge almost strictly on headlines instead of article content.
People can’t afford groceries. Rent. There is a profound increase in garbage both along highways and in rural locations because it’s the first utility to be sacrificed in the name of survival.
Paying $x per month to dig deeper in on a headline, while the above is happening, isn’t going to occur on any grand scale.
It costs money to provide people with the news. If we dont pay subscriptions then advertisers have greater seay leading to the lower quality news we have now.
Do you think the news just appears on webpages for us to consume?
Particularly in the case of investigative journalism, there is a skill involved in writing the stories, and it consumes the time and effort of many people.
Charging money for your work is not “gatekeeping.” It’s how you keep eating.
The News is something you should have to pay a subscription for.
Nah, absolutely not. Putting a profit incentive on the news is how we end up with how the news currently is - reaction-bait with the sole purpose of driving engagement and views to generate ad revenue, instead of actual, unbiased, honest journalism.
Not paying for the news is quite literally how we have found ourselves in this situation. When more were paying for the news they were less dependent on ad dollars and more on subscribers. The shift towards free news with the popularization of the web is what created our problem.
I wouldn’t say it was just that. News also got worse on e.g. government supported TV channels in countries that have them. Part of the problem is the regurgitation of social media on the news and also news organizations being afraid of social media backlash. Another part is politicians not giving interviews to organizations that ask them hard questions, that one was probably better in the past because there were more limited numbers of news sources.
If you want narrow readership. Or a society that bases its current events knowledge almost strictly on headlines instead of article content.
People can’t afford groceries. Rent. There is a profound increase in garbage both along highways and in rural locations because it’s the first utility to be sacrificed in the name of survival.
Paying $x per month to dig deeper in on a headline, while the above is happening, isn’t going to occur on any grand scale.
It costs money to provide people with the news. If we dont pay subscriptions then advertisers have greater seay leading to the lower quality news we have now.
I agree. But you can’t squeeze blood from a rock.
Gatekeeping the news? No ty.
Do you think the news just appears on webpages for us to consume?
Particularly in the case of investigative journalism, there is a skill involved in writing the stories, and it consumes the time and effort of many people.
Charging money for your work is not “gatekeeping.” It’s how you keep eating.
It’s not gatekeeping. You are paying for a service so that it can continue to persist.