Posted on 06/12/2019 9:55:23 AM PDT by dynachrome
“A lot of the public is really alienated from a lot of the journalism that they see - they don’t find it particularly trustworthy, they don’t find it particularly relevant and they don’t find it leaves them in a better place.”
While many news organizations add paywalls and some see increases in digital subscriptions, there has been little change in the proportion of people paying for online news, apart from the “Trump bump” rise in the United States in 2016/2017.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
The fact the Establishment Media is essentially the propaganda outlet for the Democratic Party really doesn't help things.
Paying for the news is an entirely different animal than paying for lies.
Websites will need to insist on revenue sharing with ISPs.
It might be say one-eighth of a cent per webpage.
If no money is forthcoming, then web browsers might get to see “We have no revenue sharing agreement with your Internet Service Provider” increasingly often.
Over two years the percentage might rise linearly from 1% of attempted page views to 97%.
Fifty bucks a month for Mammoth ISP Corporation and $0 for Mr. Writer doesn’t work well for Mr. Writer.
We donate because we want to, not because we have to.
My friend in DC is a CNN fan.
CNN tells the leftist side of a story 97% of the time and the conservative side of a story about 3% of the time.
It's was NOT the Internet.
It was that Drudge allowed the conservative side to be covered - along with the liberal side. Finally 'news' for the half of Americans usually given the finger by the press.
Diversity of thought... try it.
How fair would it be if we only got the 'wife's side in a divorce? Or only the cop's side in a trial, or only the liberal's side in the press?
I’m not willing to pay much for bad news.
“A lot of the public is really alienated from a lot of the journalism that they see - they don’t find it particularly trustworthy, they don’t find it particularly relevant and they don’t find it leaves them in a better place.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A lot of the public recognizes propaganda.
I wonder how many of those 'digital subscriptions' were bought and paid for by George Soros...
Breakup vertical news infrastructure: Comcast, ATT
Very true, but we also subscribe to the New York Times online or other digital rags because we want to, not because we have to.
(I don't want to, and don't, btw.)
I detest the ads that ‘force’ the user to listen to a hour video before they discover the answer to the initial question — is in a book they have to purchase.
But you are paying for the interaction and the community: your post proves that. The rumors and opinions are added bonuses. ;)
Good point! Don’t forget, too, they “did well on digital” by having how many rounds of layoffs? How much of a reduction in production? My local left-leaning paper had to go digital and laid off a TON of staff and cut the size of their print editions to barely a third of what it was a couple of years ago.
I pay to ensure that a platform exists for me to spread rumors and opinions!
The problem is that “If it bleeds, it leads.” “No news is good news” because good news “isn’t news.” That isn’t for philosophical reasons, but commercial necessity.So fundamentally, “news” is negative. Bad news is what journalists are looking for, so that’s what they see. They know that, and yet they claim that “journalism is objective.” There are two fundamental problems with that. One is that “objectivity” is a goal rather than a state of being. It is inherently arrogant to claim that “objectivity” is the state in which you exist. More than being an indication of actual objectivity, it indicates that you are not even trying to be objective - else you would be taking the possibility that “where you stand depends on where you sit” seriously.
Another problem is that if you know you are negative and you claim you are objective, that is tantamount to saying that
“negativity is objectivity.” And you show me someone who believes that, and I’ll show you a cynic.
Journalists are cynical about society. But (see Common Sense) society is a blessing, and government an evil only necessary to the extent that society is imperfect. And cynicism towards “A” and also towards its opposite, “B” would be incoherent. Cynicism towards “A” is consistent only with naiveté towards “B.”
Journalists’ cynicism towards society makes them naive about government. Which makes them natural socialists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.