• Not A Bird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      1 year ago

      There is a reason for it, isn’t there? Bullshit is motivated to manipulate, and spread propaganda. While, truth based journalism needs professionals to do due diligence. While we can argue for better journalism, wishing for everything to be free ain’t gonna work.

      Unless we are okay with… Ads. We won’t tolerate that either, would we?

    • Tangent5280@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Now it makes sense. The dream of universal access to knowledge was actually the iphone’s - and it was because the phone was dying, and seeing death visions, like life flashing before it’s eyes.

  • Vespair@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not talked about enough how “traditional news” is culpable for the rise of “fake news” by locking vital information and reporting behind exactly these kinds of pay walls, thus causing people to seek alternative free means instead. This is how fake news sites thrive; pushed into the forefront by traditional media who refuse to adapt their business models to the modern landscape.

    • Cataphract@lemmy.ko4abp.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      How do you feel about government subsidies being used to bolster a free press? From past examples like oil, they don’t become a shell company of the governments whims and I feel journalism is just as important to an educated populace in comparison to oil for our commerce.

      • Vespair@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I never said free, I said they needed to adapt their business model. I also never said the reason didn’t make sense, but the ramifications remain the same even if there is good reason for the practice. Whether by design or not, they still share culpability.

  • N-E-N@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Everyone hates ads but no one wants to pay for it lol

    • SIGSEGV@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No, not everybody hates ads. Everybody hates today’s ads, because they’re literally as intrusive and annoying as the designers can make them. I didn’t have a problem with ads 15 years ago, but because I have to pay for my bandwidth, and because ads like to literally block what I’m reading with a giant, 100MB, unskippable video, I use an ad blocker.

      Advertising shot itself in the foot, and it isn’t our fault for being pushed so far that we’re fed up with it.

      • scurry@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree with most of that, but I feel like we weren’t using the same Internet 15 years ago. There were still ample popups and popunders, many of which you couldn’t easily close (more than a few did the funny ‘you are an idiot’ trick of just open windows faster than you can close them to me). They were loud, both visually but also they would actually play sound in non-video pages (sometimes multiple at once). Most of them were either disgust or porn based (or the really funny meme of both at the same time). And there were so. Many. Viruses. I feel like advertisers have never been particularly respectful of the end user, and the main difference is that now they’re actively spying, where they maybe weren’t 20 years ago.

      • N-E-N@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Idk, 15 years ago I was watching cable and 1/3 of my time was spent subjected to ads on a paid service. I think I prefer them now lol

    • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I do pay for my local paper, cable, spotify, disney+, Netflix…

      Only so much blood in this here stone.

      • Trekman10@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        With so many shows getting canceled, or even un-confirmed and then obliterated from existence all for tax write offs, I’m kinda soured on Streaming these days.

        Hopefully the WGA and SAG strikes are successful and result in streaming improving again, back to how it felt during the mid 2010s.

    • FluffyToaster621@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Some sites (Fandom Wikis) are unbearable with ads. Sure, you could pay to remove them, but only because it’s so infuriating to navigate the content when it has multiple ads—some that follow you—INSIDE the content of the articles.

      Autoplaying videos, side banners, and scrolling ads are the worst and actively make me want to avoid the sites unless adblock is on.

      • N-E-N@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s why I use an inverted ad-block list. I see ads unless they get intrusive or unreasonable, and then I enable blocking on the site.

    • BurtReynoldsMustache@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Journalism should be accessible to everyone. Not many people can afford 30 different subscriptions for every individual news outlet because they’re all pay to read. Remember newspapers? Anyone could buy one on the cheap, now these fuckers have moved to a subscription service that’s even more expensive than the average newspaper used to be.

      • N-E-N@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Well there are 3 alternatives.

        Ads, which everyone on here would endorse blocking, so that’s out.

        All journalism becomes volunteer work, running off of optional donations, which seems unlikely :D

        Or all journalism becomes publicly funded via-taxes. This is probably the optimal option but I think most people would agree that ALL journalism being government funded has a ton of risks.

        • Smoogs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If I have to pay for it:

          • it cannot be sensationalized. It cannot even veer mildly from the found facts.
          • it cannot be filled with agenda bias
          • it cannot hold any false, non peer reviewed information
          • they have to pay their sources. And They have to pay their sources well. Especially the ones who are expected to uphold to peer reviews (science journalists, I’m looking at you)

          If there is a free one with ads:

          • ads cannot fabricate their facts either.

          Wanna regulate? Well. Then. Let’s regulate.

  • mrginger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    All this talk of state-sponsored/subsidized news/media gives me the wiggins, at least as someone who lives in the US. I’m sure people smarter than myself could come up with a bullet proof system to prevent abuse, but really, I would have little faith it would stand the test of time. I feel like any protections you put in place would be eroded eventually. All it takes is one “emergency” or “disaster”. Maybe I’m wrong. It just feels so 1984ish.

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    “democracy dies in darkness…”

    Is my favorite ironic walled garden gate keeping paywall byline… I think the Washington post uses it.

    It wouldn’t be so dark if the paywall wasn’t blocking the light…

  • qjkxbmwvz@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just curious — how would you like this to work? If you want high quality journalism, you need to pay journalists.

    You can pay them through ads, but 1) this is annoying, and 2) people just install ad blockers.

    You can have state-sponsored media, which can work reasonably well…or can end up a propaganda machine.

    Or…you can pay.

    Journalism is not a crazy lucrative career for most. Financially, most of the folks writing for NYT would be better off in PR — and I don’t think that’s a good thing for society.

  • •••@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Universal access, as in everyone need to pay 8 dollars a month for the privilege.

  • stealthnerd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The fall of newspapers led us down the path of click bait, low quality, ad driven “news”. Very few newspapers survived the transition to digital because suddenly nobody wanted to pay for access to something they could get online for free. Those that did survive mostly exist in a much smaller form with low funding and reduced quality.

    Personally, I’m excited to see it becoming more common for people to subscribe to news services again. I just wish there was more diversity and competition available like there was in the past but I’m hopeful we’ll get there as more people seem to be opening back up to paying for high quality publications.

    High quality journalism can’t exist without paid subscribers but there are still ways to access it for those who can’t afford it, visiting a local library for example.

    • Holyhandgrenade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I know “state-funded media” is an ominous word to Americans, but most European countries have their own government broadcaster and news organization, entirely funded through taxes.
      Those generally offer high-quality non-biased journalism (of course it’s always based on how authoritarian the government is). The British BBC, the Swedish SVT, the German DW etc. are all publicly owned broadcasting companies.

      • IWantToFuckSpez@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        BBC is publicly funded but they collect the money themselves trough the TV license, they are not funded by the government trough taxes and they make a shit ton of money from commercial operations, like selling shows and formats to foreign networks. That’s probably the best way to keep an independent state network with minimal government meddling. Though we’ve seen that individuals with power at the network can bias the news reporting. Like BBC definitely favors the political right.