Likewise, I already limit how much I share things from paywalled sources, because I feel like it’s rude(?) to tell my friends “hey, read this cool thing” and then they can’t access it.
3 Likes
It’s an interesting trade off. We used to have a small number of choices but that meant we had more shared cultural experiences.
When there were three networks in the U.S., approximately everybody saw the same shows. You could reference and remix and bond over these shared experiences.
Now, you’ve got to subscribe to HBO for Westworld (or Game of Thrones), Hulu for The Handmaid’s Tale, Netflix for Lost in Space, Amazon for The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, CBS for Star Trek, etc. There’s a lot more out quality content out there, but there’s also greater fragmentation of our shared experiences because nobody can afford to subscribe to (and spend the time watching) more than a small fraction of even the highest quality shows out there.
And it’s not just television. There are far more movies released each year, and far more books (from far fewer publishers). And with ebooks, you’ve got exclusives (especially Kindle) that lock readers in to one system or the other; there’s no longer a universal bookstore that has (or can order) any book in print.
3 Likes
Not quite across publishers, but there are a number of pay-per-article services in the scientific literature. The only trouble is that it’s “Read this article for $80.00.”
2 Likes
Not just printed magazines. Our break room had numerous magazines discarded there + numerous local and national papers. I subscribed to several glossy magazines and the local paper all of which ended up there most of the time. Any restaurant selling breakfast would probably have several newspapers with crosswords half done - not any more. It’s often hard to find a local newspaper when you’re traveling - I still like to buy them, but everything is just a vehicle for advertising now.
I feel like it always has been, it’s just more blatant now. Their goal may have been to get the news out, but the advertising is what keeps the lights on. As more people cancel subscriptions, more ads have to be included to stay solvent.
That’s quite a narrow focus.
1 Like
Um, companies don’t think in terms of the strain that they are placing on their customer’s budget any more than we contemplate the strain we are placing on our employers budget.
Both media (and we as employees) know that they’re not indispensable. They charge what they think people are willing to pay. Sometimes they guess wrong and charge too little or too much and go bankrupt.
Indeed, but since you and I aren’t willing to pay for news, and advertising is becoming less effective at raising money, I do think we have to accept that we ourselves are choosing to ensure that media coverage will be provided by those who are willing to pay.
1 Like
I’m not so certain. I think because newspapers have tended to be to the left of the median voter, we liberals are used to expecting news coverage that is closer to our slant, and thus we’re less willing to pay because we can just go to the next site.
I’ve not heard of many left-leaning sites making big profits. Or maybe Boing-Boing has a secret Swiss bank account somewhere :-).
But the filtering effect is, as you noted, almost certainly more severe. Moreover, the people most likely to shell out money are the one’s who will tend towards the extreme, and they’ll shower their money (such as it is) on sites that cater to their biases.
It’s very hard to make money being thoughtful and even handed. Just note how many people here seem to speak of not spending any money on media with some pride.
There’s too many news organizations and too many publications out there already. There’s not enough news to justify the existence of so many people being paid to write news coverage. Hence click bait and endless rehashings of the same set of facts. A contraction of the industry will be a good thing.
Which I think summarizes why journalism is in the state it’s in. (And honestly, I balk at the price as well). Good long-form journalism (which is what I usually see at that price point) is a complete loss. If all I’m willing to pay for is listicles (advertising can pay for a journalist to Google for 1/2 hour), then listicles are all I deserve.
I’m a middle-class earner. If I valued news coverage, I could be doing my part to keep newspapers and other news gatherers in business.
While I’d like to tell myself that, I know a little about the media. Actual news coverage (which is expensive as hell), as opposed to rehashing other people’s coverage, has never been thinner. The fact that there’s a huge industry that relies on rehashing the core bit of actual news coverage done by a small number of players hides this fact.
If the Internet is good at anything, it’s good at monetizing other people’s work. (Like have the store and its staff “sell” the product, then have Amazon pick up the actual purchase because it’s so much “cheaper”.)
This has long been my favorite model. One I know of is blendle (https://launch.blendle.com/), but I want one that is more comprehensive.
Yeah, I’m a cheap bastard. 
1 Like
You can just use NoFeeNews.com… They aggregate paywall-free alternatives to the same stories on paywall sites
1 Like
That’s cool, thanks!
No problem!
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
