Ooh, I wasn’t thinking. Thanks! I see somebody else posted an archive link already, so I deleted my comment and will try to be more mindful in the future.
It doesn’t. However, not paying them (as a society) pretty much guarantees that they’ll have to sell themselves out to larger interests completely, or else go under.
I’m noticed that the news organizations with paywalls (Washington Post, NYT, Technology Review) tend to have markedly higher quality and less of a weirdly establishment slant on things than e.g. CNN or Newsweek or what have you. BBC is pretty much the only big exception and it’s state funded.
Shame about that paywall, seemed like a good read for the first paragraph.
deleted by creator
From now on, please, just post an archive link instead of copy/pasting the entire article. There are copyright laws that we must follow here. Thanks.
Ooh, I wasn’t thinking. Thanks! I see somebody else posted an archive link already, so I deleted my comment and will try to be more mindful in the future.
Thank you and no worries.
Not paying for journalism means receiving only news that someone has a reason to invest money into causing you to consume.
I’m sure you’re right, but I only have -$430 to spend.
I gochu internet friend.
Gochu internet friend.
https://archive.is/20240115210658/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/17/eaton-taguba-anderson-generals-military/
Not a bad point. I’m not sure that paying them means they’re not beholden to larger interests as well, though.
It doesn’t. However, not paying them (as a society) pretty much guarantees that they’ll have to sell themselves out to larger interests completely, or else go under.
I’m noticed that the news organizations with paywalls (Washington Post, NYT, Technology Review) tend to have markedly higher quality and less of a weirdly establishment slant on things than e.g. CNN or Newsweek or what have you. BBC is pretty much the only big exception and it’s state funded.
deleted by creator