Some replies in this poll are pretty disheartening. It's clear that everyone reads the news regularly, and deep down understands that it's valuable, but then find reasons to not pay for it.
Tracking? Ads? Yeah I have them too. Use adblocker and rss (you probably already do).
Bias? Subscribe to multiple sources.
Support your news people. Or there won't be any left.
Social media is not news. It's commentary.
@karan It's an interesting point. Thing is all of your examples except for food are entertainment. Then again most "news" is nothing but entertainment since it is a biased and opinionated version of current events. Maybe that should be a clue about what is really going on.
Some movies you (legally) watch will be horrible. You still pay for them.
Why can't the same be true for news? It's a business after all, and I know no one who doesn't consume their product.
I agree that a lot of news is garbage, but local, independent news is pretty solid.
I'm not sure what you meant by "clue" and "what is really going on".
What is really going on?
@karan @WhoNeedszZz sometimes I watch a movie or a show and it'll be terrible, that's true. On Netflix that's amortized with all the good stuff I watch. I didn't pay $10 for a bad show, I paid $10 for -all- the shows I watch. I also get to pick what I want to see.
With news there's no balancing "good news" factor, and I have no say in what they show me. I pay $10 for the news and I can wind up with a month's worth of absolutely shit news (both quality of reporting and subject matter).
Print and digital magazines are chock full of ads and their websites are bloated behemoths of JS fuckery. News radio around here is relegated to headline blurbs twice an hour between ads and shitty music. On TV you don't endure ads during the newscast but it's not high quality reporting at all, looping what amounts to stock footage while (cont.) 2/n
I absolutely agree that we need quality journalism as a balance to government and corporations to keep them in line, and I'd probably pay for it if the option existed.
It doesn't exist today though. Good journalists are extremely rare and the delivery of the news is a shit show as I mentioned before.
Steam, Spotify, and Netflix are killing it right now. 3/n
@karan @WhoNeedszZz And they got big by building the platform first and offering the customers something that was better than the alternatives. They didn't require users to pay up front against promises of content down the line, they put the content up first and said "this costs $10 a month for an ad-free quality experience". (Slightly different in the case of Steam, but you know what I mean).
tl;dr: don't expect people to pay unless you're selling something worthwhile.
@karan @WhoNeedszZz I read the news every day, and I don't trust any of them individually. I read several sources to see what facts are shared across all sources, and only trust those facts to be reasonably accurate. Especially if two politically opposed sources agree on something; those things are most likely to be true.
I wouldn't pay any of the sources I commonly read as it stands now, because of the terrible UX of their web pages and the lack of quality reporting.
That's why I don't stop reading the news (my primary source of news consumption is reading it; it's on demand and more informationally dense than TV or radio).
I'm not opposed to paying for it, but I will not pay for it in the form its offered today.
I do also understand that ad-free would mean subscriptions costing $50 or above. Scroll.com is interesting in that regard.
Last question - what do you imagine totally unbiased and fair news (your definition) looks like?
@karan @WhoNeedszZz eh, I don't know that ad free has to cost that much. Netflix has *way* higher costs than any newspaper yet it costs only $10. The difference is everyone has to pay for Netflix, they aren't subsidising free users.
The news will never be totally unbiased, but they could achieve fairness by being upfront about their biases and following journalistic principles, rigour, and editorial control. We also need to educate the public better with critical thinking skills.
So if you're saying that news will never be unbiased, I take that to mean that you should pay for the multiple sources you read to get the balance you seek. Why wouldn't you do that?
I've explained several times why I'm opposed to paying for the current format of news. I will not pay for an ad infested, tracker filled, bloated web full of poor quality reporting.
Fix those things and I'm willing to pay. I won't pay you up front and hope for change down the line.
And yes, if you want news with the biases neutralised you need a minimum of three different sources.
@karan @wizzwizz4 @kungtotte @WhoNeedszZz in addition to a decent news service(especially in comparison to US news, although it falls over itself trying too hard to appear balanced), there's no adverts on the website or TV channels/radio. On the downside some of their staff are way overpaid and need a wage cap. They also produced the world's best wildlife documentaries. If all other news services were paywalled I probably wouldn't pay for any, but might read a Newsweek/economist type publication
> although it falls over itself trying too hard to appear balanced
Ah, yes. I remember the most recent election's coverage – interviewers played along with the rhetoric because to call it out would be to appear partial (Mr. Johnson did so far more than any other candidate), so while each individual interview looked okay, on the whole the more honest candidates got more of their flaws exposed.
Esse quam videri, BBC.
@simon @karan @kungtotte @WhoNeedszZz Though, even so, they were still threatened with the pulling of their funding. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/dec/15/boris-johnson-threatens-bbc-with-two-pronged-attack
If you're being accused of A bias by the Bs, and B bias by the As, you're probably doing something right – hence the running joke amongst BBC-employed comedians.
The fifth result for "bbc right-wing bias" is "Why is the BBC so left wing? - Quora".
The BBC's only ever (slightly) biased when the charter's up for renewal.
@simon @karan @WhoNeedszZz the BBC webpage is better than most, that's true, it's still bloated with JS and crap. Looking at the source of the mobile page, the first actual page content shows up 700 lines down. That's a whole lot of unnecessary stuff before you're at the actual content.
As a frame of reference, my personal web page has 18 lines preceding the content, half of which are the navigation links.
Remember when *X* technology was going to kill the record industry and it never happened, yet we kept hearing about lots of different ways we "had" to kowtow to them to keep these corporations from falling over?
Yeah... I don't think we should pay newspapers $50/mo to "save journalism" either.
@karan Well. I voted for $0 and was about to say I don't pay for any news but then I thought about it and decided to subscribe to LWN at the $7/mo tier. Other than that, it's all RSS feeds from various sources such as Lobsters, Slashdot, and blogs.
Solid. I do think it's worth it to support the content we consume even if it's not perfect all the time.
@karan Not paying for news because I don't news.
Not that I don't have the money, but I don't have the time or the stomach for day-to-day affairs like "$POLITICIAN1 said $WORDS to $POLITICIAN2, here's what $EXPERT has to say about that."
I also don't give a shit about celebrities, aka people whose everyday lives and opinions are reported because their everyday lives and opinions are reported because reasons.
@karan It seems wasteful to buy a daily newspaper subscription just to skim over the headlines only when I have time, and *maybe* read one in-depth article per week, but probably closer to one per month. Then there's the thing where I don't really trust a single source of news.
If something is truly important, it will find its way to me. Maybe a week or two later, but that's the price of peace of mind.
This is the tragedy of the commons. You're not alone in thinking that. Say if 90% of local newsrooms die because they didn't generate revenue. How do you expect even the more important stuff to get to you when no one's producing it?
I think the value of news to everyone is very high even if they find reasons to not pay for it.
@karan What would you consider to be "more important stuff" that would only reach me via a newsroom and not via word of mouth?
@Coffee I'm saying if there's no one producing or covering the news, there's nothing to spread.
Here's a good example of that - https://www.latimes.com/local/bell/la-me-bell-scandal-a-times-investigation-20160211-storygallery.html
This town has no local newsroom (because no one paid for it), and so the politicians decided to pay themselves obscene amounts of public money. For a small town, this was big news. But it didn't spread because no one was looking.
@karan I see. I would say this town has systemic problems that run deeper than merely missing a local newsroom, but that's just sad.
@karan 0 - not because I can't or don't want to pay, but because I'm information-overloaded anyway and don't need another inbox that I'll feel guilty about neglecting... I see the flaws in this logic but that's how it goes ;).
@karan "Social media is not news. It's commentary." What is meant by this line? I would be very surprised if those of us in the FOSSdom used social media to obtain our news.
Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.