The NYT is what billionaires want to tell me, and if they expect me to pay for the privilege they’re out of their minds. Oughta be paying me to read that trash.
If you were talking about actually independent sources providing other perspectives then you might have a point.
I’m talking about all sources, the average lemmy user doesn’t distinguish nuance, they complain about all paywalls. And billionaires take advantage of that and obviously buy the papers with the widest reach first, but with time they’ll reach everywhere.
Yet the only ones you listed are the billionaire backed ones. Curious.
Almost as if your argument is in bad faith because you yourself don’t have any great examples of the sort of thing people would want to support that are also news outlets with reporters, and so you are forced to use bad examples.
Ill give you an example though, just like the other person pointed out, there are smaller sources popping up everywhere. Even youtube journalism such as HowTown are pockets of not yet corporate information sources that people are fine with supporting.
I listed ones that are not random newspapers, what the other commenter suggested. I don’t have examples of the sort of thing people would want to support, because people don’t want to support anything. Not with ads, not with money, just everything must be free to them.
You say it was, but I don’t recall it ever filing for bankruptcy etc, so I have to wonder what these claims are based on, and why you felt their journalism was actually good and the type of thing people say they would pay for in the first place. In essence, you are still using the bad example, but with a new unverified claim that still doesnt work because it is a bad example.
I don’t thing the likes of wsj, nyt or similar are “random newspapers”, and they still get hate for asking for money. Bezos finds that useful.
The NYT is what billionaires want to tell me, and if they expect me to pay for the privilege they’re out of their minds. Oughta be paying me to read that trash.
If you were talking about actually independent sources providing other perspectives then you might have a point.
I’m talking about all sources, the average lemmy user doesn’t distinguish nuance, they complain about all paywalls. And billionaires take advantage of that and obviously buy the papers with the widest reach first, but with time they’ll reach everywhere.
Yet the only ones you listed are the billionaire backed ones. Curious.
Almost as if your argument is in bad faith because you yourself don’t have any great examples of the sort of thing people would want to support that are also news outlets with reporters, and so you are forced to use bad examples.
Ill give you an example though, just like the other person pointed out, there are smaller sources popping up everywhere. Even youtube journalism such as HowTown are pockets of not yet corporate information sources that people are fine with supporting.
I listed ones that are not random newspapers, what the other commenter suggested. I don’t have examples of the sort of thing people would want to support, because people don’t want to support anything. Not with ads, not with money, just everything must be free to them.
You say it was, but I don’t recall it ever filing for bankruptcy etc, so I have to wonder what these claims are based on, and why you felt their journalism was actually good and the type of thing people say they would pay for in the first place. In essence, you are still using the bad example, but with a new unverified claim that still doesnt work because it is a bad example.
Let me retype it:
#It’s an example of not being a random newspaper.
Then that doesnt really help your point then does it?
It’s all my point is.