Fuck Newspapers
- Started
- Last post
- 39 Responses
- instrmntl0
A freelance situation might be nice, but I imagine most reporters don't have time to do all the paperwork, hustling etc that come with the turf, as we all know so well. Like Fletch! I think newspapers are like health insurance. They need the overall revenue of the paper to pay for the journalists. Along with subscriptions, papers need to figure out another revenue source to replace ads. With the internet, I suppose people realize how much of the news we get is reuters and half assed summarized reports.
- spot130
Just use Chrome in incognito mode, problem solved for almost all 'pay walls' with the exception of premium content which is usually just opinion articles anyway. Don't forget, these papers need social media sharing to make this work so you'll always get free access to content when you are coming from social media.
- doesnotexist0
_niko, supporting journalists directly and not the companies they work for would result in your news being so chaotic, you wouldn't be able to digest it. though they are bloated perhaps, do you not realize how big and complicated a machine like this is? being able to source and track information globally? i wouldn't want to just pay the journalist, but the publisher.
you can say information and news should be free all you want, but when it's happening news is a highly subjective thing and i wouldn't want something spitting objective facts at me. i would want a seasoned mind giving me their take on an event and what kind of implications that event might have, how it might effect me, &c.
- animatedgif0
Just charge people 10 cents to post each comment under an article. The Daily Mail and Guardian would be fucking loaded.
- canuck0
Yeah, I noticed the star is now Subscription. Wonder if the advertisements are gone once you pay for it. doubt it.
- _niko0
I can see the need for the pay model in the past. There were tons of expenses associated with the printing and distribution of a daily paper.
Now with the click of a mouse, i can get news from all over the world from every news service.
It's redundant to pay $19.99 for the globe and mail and then $9.99 for the toronto star and then $9.99 for national post when they all feed me the exact same stories, the majority of which are from the Associated press or Reuters anyway, when I can get the same stories and then some from CBC, BBC, Google, yahoo and others for free.
And local news? I learn about anything of importance on QBN from i_monk and others hours or days before the Star breaks it lol, not to mention twitter or facebook.
I'd rather directly support small journalists and bloggers than help line the pockets of Conrad Black, Rupert murdoch, Berlusconi and other big media moguls.
- boobs0
One of the big complaints about the declining money in the newspaper business is that there is a lot less money spent on foreign reporting. But, you know, most foreign countries have reputable news organizations. Why can't newspapers here get the articles from, say, a newspaper in Berlin, or one in Tokyo, and translate those, and publish them here.
I for one would be more interested in what was in the Japanese newspapers, or the Korean newspaper, or the German press, than I would be in learning what some American traveling over there on an expense account thinks.
The reporting, is, by and large, being done (obviously, except in countries that have egregious press controls). But it doesn't show up here until it's been run through a lot of American editorial filters, which support massive American prejudices.
Obviously the model of American journalism for the last century wasn't so great. Americans of nearly every stripe and strata were incredibly ignorant of the world out there. (I remember Reagan asking, "Is France in NATO?" when he was President.) So, it's not as though the past model was so great in serving to make an informed public.
And even touted news organizations like the New York Times have made enormous basic news blunders--like their endless stream of articles supporting the war on Iraq--in foreign coverage.
So, it's not as though we're going from some great system, to chaos (which is how the news organizations portray it).
I think a news aggregator that took the top 2 stories from each of the top two papers in each G20 nation, and translated them, would be better than anything we ever had in the past. And it wouldn't cost much, I don't think.
- great points, it's why Al Jazeera has become so popular, people love seeing news from a different perspective and from_niko
- ...the horses mouth._niko
- even though it is incredibly biased.doesnotexist
- Miguex0
I see your point, but in reality.. you should feel grateful for the free resources you have available at the moment, not pissed off because of the ones you have to pay for.
Don't ever forget that there are people working on those organization and as industry is going thought a DRASTIC change, they are trying to figure out where is their money coming from in the future.
If you don't like the idea, go somewhere else for the service, but if you do like what they are doing, then why not support it?
Eventually, the power is on the consumers like yourself. If no one likes the idea, the model will have to adapt or die.
- colin_s0
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/…
it's also really important to see that organizations that do actually cherish the idea of journalism and the fourth estate are pushing to reinvent it in the digital age.
part of the issue here is that now publishing in any sort of magnificent format is different than it used to be. you used to need a good print designer to create a dynamic way of telling a story visually - then there was just the pressman. now, you need a conjunction of editors, writers, designers, and developers in order to have the story take shape across various platforms and devices.
we really do need these institutions, and they need to be supported financially.
- prophetone0
Newspapers are not alone in this.
- Fantrom0
Well they better do something quick as they already lost billions.
- jacklalane0
News is not a fundamental right or freedom, it is a business. Stick with CBC then, it will always be free because it is funded by your hard earned tax dollars. If it was so important for you to continue to read more than 10 articles a month on the Star you would find a way to save the $2.50 a week it costs. Kickstarter campaign?
- _niko0
I don't know, maybe we've had it too good for too long.
I have no problem chipping in and supporting wikipedia or PBS or local jazz stations when they hold fundathons to keep them afloat. i have no problem buying magazine subscriptions or paying monthly for netflix, but it just rubs me the wrong way when it comes to news. It should be for the masses and easily accessible and free.
- alot of it is. the question is, are you willing to support newspapers that invest in great local journalism.prophetone
- if you are not, then you still get free news... it's just chicken mcnugget quality and will slant toward gossip bs on repeat.prophetone
- as you said before, CBC, BBC and others are hardly chicken nuggets or gossip rags._niko
- news isn't objective, it's subjective, so you should pay for it. interpreting and presenting news should never be a free servicedoesnotexist
- be freedoesnotexist
- colin_s0
reputable journalism is, at least in america, an incredibly important facet of democracy.
yes, newspapers need to adapt to the digital age. but part of their reputation is why whistleblowers or sources go to them. independent journalists would have a much more difficult time exposing corruption, identifying abuses of power, or even having the resources to do proper research and verify accurate reports.
creatives can do things on their own and a good journalist can create a great story - but that requires backing. being a freelance designer is a far cry from a journalist.
the newspaper industry allows journalists to follow stories across the world if need be, provide insurance and legal support, as well as another level of trust for those who may be nervous about coming clean in regards to, say, trusted NSA programs. journalists go up against governments, creatives just make pictures.
news is and always will be the most important aspect of a free society. information is just propaganda without democratic support. it's not like the record industry just vying for profits - it's making sure we all can make trusted, informed decisions in regards to our lives and the world around us.
- jacklalane0
@_niko
First off I don't know where you are getting $19.99 It's $9.99!
Obviously you care to read the stories about the idiot mayor or you wouldn't be complaining.The Star does solid journalism and has reporters working on stories for months ex. Rob Ford Crack Video. They were responsible for identifying the Police officer who was eventually charged with beating Adam Nobody during the G20 when other papers did no investigative journalism.
If you are two cheap to pay for content you can read the Metro!
- exactly. you'll be up to speed on amanda bynes in no time...prophetone
- you're right, it was the globe and mail that is charging $19.99_niko
- should good news and opinion be accessible only by the rich? I don't have $10 or $20 to spend on news, i have kids to feed._niko
- should the poor only read about celebrity gossip? This is elitist no?_niko
- it's what's freeprophetone
- and by the way journalists have kids to feed as well. this is what i like to call an "economy".prophetone
- a good journalist doesn't need a newspaper these days. If he's good people will read and follow him from anywhere._niko
- newspapers are like music distribution companies in a way, and journalists like artists. Good artists get to the masses_niko
- without the need for giant record companies._niko
- colin_s0
niko -
i'd say to your first post, why in the world would anyone pay for design? agencies and designers and developers charge thousands of dollars for work you could get for free from some kid in college and a squarespace template. who actually would go out and pay for design?
- not the same thing. Please do pay all the creatives and journalists. They make money on ads. Only hire and keep on the amount of talent you can afford._niko
- the amount of talent you can afford._niko
- it's like saying we should all subscribe to internet explorer so that it can keep serving us content from talented creatives._niko
- they don't make the money they need from just ads anymore, hence the paywallsprophetone
- what's funny is your arguments are no longer valid. maybe 5-10 years ago but things have changed.prophetone
- the point is there's value there, it should be paid forprophetone
- Continuity0
'i don't see what would compel me to pay to access the star.'
Maybe you don't, but others do. Like I said, if The Guardian charged for online subscriptions, I'd be happy to pay. Why? Well, for one, I agree with their editorial position. For another thing, there are articles about many, many, many things that interest me. Lastly, even though The Guardian isn't designated a newspaper of record, I've got enough faith in the quality of the reporting to consider it a very reliable news source.
I pay for a subscription to The Globe and Mail, though. Whilst I don't agree with its editorial position, most of the time, there's enough content I find interesting enough to pay money for.
The point is: many people probably feel the same about The Star as I do about The Guardian, and are happy to pay for their subscriptions. And why not? If they consider the paper to be of sufficient quality, that's all anyone needs to care about, and I absolutely believe journalists, editors, in-house photographers, designers and so on have a right to earn a decent living for their hard graft and, if subscription sales helps pay for that, then I'm all for papers charging.
It's not like you could pick up a paper copy for free anyway, is it?
- A paper copy is different, you want to help offset the cost of the material, but would you pay
for a paper that was surrounded_niko - surrounded by thousands of free papers all with the same stories?_niko
- Do you think running a digital newspaper has no staffing other costs?jacklalane
- A paper copy is different, you want to help offset the cost of the material, but would you pay
- Continuity0
@_niko:
If you're not happy with The Star charging you money to access their content, go to the CBC, the BBC and the Guardian for Canadian and international news, and pick up whatever Toronto's free analogue to Halifax's The Coast is every week for local Toronto news.Problem sorted.
- Alternately, put your money where your mouth is and work on spec. Come back here in a month, and tell us again if newspapers don't have a right to charge for content online.Continuity
- ... newspapers don't have a right to charge for content online.Continuity
- exactly, I just don't get it, seems like a desperation move. I look at those sources and others daily, so i don't see_niko
- what would compel me to pay to access the star._niko
- and you can't compare the work of one man to a bloated under-performing corporation.
who's fat cats at the top make_niko - millions._niko
- I agree they should all be for profit, but figure out a way to make money that doesn't include subscriptions._niko
- Otherwise slim down or close._niko