It very well could be that he opposes The Atlantic’s practices and is using this op-ed to speak out against it.
Why would they allow that?
Bureaucracy is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural
Journalistic integrity.
It’s not too uncommon for journals to include op-eds critical of the journal itself. Usually the author is responding to a previously published article (hence the “op”), but they can also criticize the journal’s practices or call for broader change in the industry.
I agree with the sentiment, but I’m not sure how to make it work. Journalists need to make a living, but if it’s distributed free, where’s that money going to come from?
damn if only we could subsidize journalism instead of oil and meat
oh well i guess
We could but that brings its own moral issues. Can you trust a journalist to be truthful and critical of a government that signs their paycheque?
with sufficient legislation, sure. Do you inherently distrust NPR?
Inherently? No. But part of that is due to the fact that there are other organizations with other motives and funding sources to compare with.
Agreed. We got used to free stuff online, but the reality was that you paid for news for the longest time (except the evening news on network TV).
Easy. Just track the readers’ data without their knowledge nor consent and sell it to the highest bidder. Also, don’t pay your journalists anyway for double profit.
The thing for me is that there are too many (essentially all) news portals, who are doing this individually which brings the reader into the conflict of “what should I pay for?”. Hands down, I’m not consuming one news paper and that’s it. In Germany here, I’ve got about 5 which immediately come to my mind and then some more internationally. Every portal wants 3-5 euro/dollar/whatever from me per month, which is not manageable.
What we need - in my opinion - is the possibility for a specific subscription bundle. I’d be happy to pay for my news for a manageable amount and payment. Let it be 15 euro per month for x free to chose papers and I won’t even think twice, because yes! These guys need to be paid too and I’d love to give them their deserved payment.
But this situation we’ve got here? All over the world? No wonder, online archives are thriving.
Journalists made a living before paywalls
People used to pay for physical newspapers, and TV journalists were paid for by ads. Ads were unskippable, and companies would pay more for them because of it.
Yet you pay the paywall fee and there are still ads, and you talk about the lack of funds to pay journalists while the Murdochs and other media families live it up, richer than kings.
Yet you pay the paywall fee and there are still ads,
Not on any of my computers. Ad companies know this and pay accordingly.
and you talk about the lack of funds to pay journalists while the Murdochs and other media families live it up, richer than kings.
That’s got nothing to do with what I’m talking about. I’m talking about a theoretical world where consuming the product created by journalists is free. Where would the money to pay journalists come from? Are the ads preferred? I know I’m never going to be disabling my ad blocker. Is it a government subsidy?
Basically, I’m talking about what should be, not what currently is.
Am I going to see ads if I pay for this news?? I mean, I’m not because ad blockers, but still, I’ve never paid for news online. When you do, are there still ads?
The missed irony is in an article criticising paywalls, on a webpage that asks for your information to access it
I’m pretty sure the article mentions that is behind a paywall. The article writer is against it.
The thing that bothers me most with the current pay wall situation is that I’m not against paying for journalism in general, in fact I favor it: Reward good work with good money.
The problem is the inflexible payment methods. I want to be able to pay some cents for a single article quickly and conveniently. But most online newspapers offer only a month+ long subscription. That’s asking way too much, I want really want just this single article. And all the other stuff that you’re also giving me access to I simply wouldn’t use.
I like to read up on specific topics from a variety of sources but the current economic models heavily punish my archetype of costumer. I simply can’t afford to open up hundreds of subscriptions over the course of a year.
Now often I simply fall into the X free articles per month category because I stray across so many different media outlets but that feels bad too because I actually want to pay for individual articles and help preserve journalism but there’s no means. Best I can do currently is rotate some subscriptions each month and free ride on the rest.
In the paper era you could at least grab an individual issue (not an individual article, series or section thougn) at a newsstand and weren’t locked in.
The web desperately needs infrastructure to effortlessly and quickly transfer small amounts of currency - change my mind. European Central Bank is working on a digital Euro which could lead to this but that’s many years down the road and also going to depend a lot on their implementation.
I feel like the people most affected by paywalls, i.e. people who read their news, are already pretty well informed.
There’s plenty of access to quality journalism, more than ever, the problem is that no amount of quality or availability can compete with misinformation tailored to addict, comfort, and flatter it’s audience. You can’t inform people against their will.
For awhile it seemed like we didn’t need public broadcasting (CBC in Canada, BBC in UK, PBS? in US) but with paywall world it’s going to be more and more essential.
spoiler
🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔
Did you know that every minute, 60 seconds pass in Africa?
No way! It’s the same here in California, what a coincidence!
Enter url at archive dot ph - problem solved.
It’s called irony, gosh
