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.
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.
Looks like a login wall. While I get the “joke” or irony, Journalism has never been free. Servers, journalists, investigations, and apps still cost money. So did printing and delivery. There are countless sources of information online so you do not have to join The Times but for some the journalistic value is worth the price.
Wikipedia offers knowledge to the world for free and are maintained through donation (including myself) and philanthropy. It has its issues but provides free information.
I think we can a enjoy a variety of options. Paid journalism, ad based news, and “free” community supported. There likely are other models we can adopt.
Other free sources I use. Roca News app Gabe Fleisher’s Wake up to Politics Knowledge at Wharton
Bypass Paywalls Clean will do the job for you.
A former newspaper.
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.
Sort of feel that dream really went downhill fast the moment troll factories and Cambridge Analytica / Emerdata showed how much it could be milked and paved the way for the expansions on doing it.
I choose to believe the author did this intentionally.
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.
"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...
I wish I could just pay per article sometimes. Let the subscription be optional for people who read a lot from that source.
Just download Firefox, install UBlock Origin, and disable JavaScript.
12ft.io is a really good site for getting around these kinds of paywalls.
That person who took the screenshot doesn't care about anything in his life. Look at his phone's charge.
News, and I would argue journalism in general, is not what the term knowledge is referring to in that sentence.
I fucking hate this bullshit!
Literally a game of whack-a-mole regarding paywalls and adblockers.
