I quit

[odeon]

I can't say I was surprised either.

[Walkie]

sadly, you now have to subscribe to read articles in the Washington Post.
That's bit of a luxury for poor folk subsisting on benefits, isn't it? Especiallyl if they're living in the middle of Britain!   

[Phallacy]

Thankfully there's a bunch of other good quality, reality-biased news outlets who will gladly let you read all you want without paying a dime and will even ignore your ad blocker. Such as The Baffler and NPR. Screw WP.

[Walkie]

Thankfully there's a bunch of other good quality, reality-biased news outlets who will gladly let you read all you want without paying a dime and will even ignore your ad blocker. Such as The Baffler and NPR. Screw WP.

I just love that term "reality-biased".

I looked up the Baffler, Sounds very intersting (thanks ) but clearly no substitute for the daly rag

The Baffler is America’s leading voice of interesting and unexpected left-wing political criticism, cultural analysis, short stories, poems and art. We publish six print issues annually, as well as online content every day of the cursed workweek.

Founded in 1988 by Thomas Frank as “the journal that blunts the cutting edge,” the magazine is currently edited by Jonathon Sturgeon and headquartered in New York.

...

Our regular subjects include Silicon Valley snake-oil, the deadening weight of consumer capitalism, our faithless media, and the redemptive promise of people claiming control of their own lives. Submit your own dyspeptic work for our consideration over here.

The Baffler is owned by the non-profit Baffler Foundation and the majority of our budget comes from tax-deductible donations. We are as charitable as a church, and certainly more fun.

Gotta love that ethos. 

For daily news and quality journalism   the online version of our UK rag the Guardian is pretty damned good. They put their money where their left-wing mouth is and let you read as much as you like, subscription ofr no subscription. I do  hope that  they manage to get enough subsctions to keep that up!

 But, really ,  its not that there's a dearth of decent, accessible news outlets, so much as it's extremely  annoying that folks  'attempts to share and discuss  news stories on forums like this are repeatedly undermined by the moneygrubbing publishers 

[Walkie]

PS

Screw WP.

I think we have a smilie for that, don't we?
....ohhhhh, different WP.  Well, well, what a coincidence. Seems like a most unfortunate acronym   

[odeon]

I like Washington Post and fully understand that they have to charge money.

[Walkie]

I like Washington Post and fully understand that they have to charge money.

the could let people read enough articles per week  for free that folk can follow up citations , for example, withoutt having to subscribe to every newspaper on earth. they wouldn't be losng any revenue that way.  those who want to read that particu;ar paper on a daily basis would still have to subscribe.  And as for the rest of us? well,  what are the chances that we both care enough and can afford to subscribe to every online journal on earth? they just lose the chance to reel some of us in by hiding behind a paywall.

[Gopher Gary]

I'm not sure if the Washington Post allows limited free views or if some articles simply aren't pay to view, but I was able to view that article link. 

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

I can access that article without subscribing.

I'm pretty sure the Washington Post allows you to read one or two articles a week or month before paywalling you.

I don't pay subscriptions for online newspapers and I have been known to slip into incognito mode to get around those limits BUT I do get that journalism is in decline as a profession because their traditional revenue sources have dried up.

[Walkie]

hmm. maybe the allowance is so niggardly that i used mine up already, just following occasional links on here? 

 i vry much appreciate that newspapers need to generate funds somehow. but it seems pretty counterproductive to me, if those rags with a left-wing bias (not really talking about WP here, though) hide themselves beghind a paywall, supposing  that their political stance is sincere. i mean, if the poorest readers can't realistically  access quality journalism, then you'll surely get more of them turning to  The Dail Mail ,  Fox news etc. thus strengthening the political right in the long term.  So, hats off to the Guardian for not going the pay wall route; and i very much hope that works out for them. 

As you said., Mo:
 

I do get that journalism is in decline as a profession because their traditional revenue sources have dried up.

Traditional sources meaning advertising?Yeah.  it's an intersting situation. On the positive side, that could mean that capitalism loses its stranglehold on the media, couldn't it? or....yeah. well, there are plenty of potentially nregatve sides, ofc,  depending on how the media adapt.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

As you said., Mo:
 

I do get that journalism is in decline as a profession because their traditional revenue sources have dried up.

Traditional sources meaning advertising?Yeah.  it's an intersting situation. On the positive side, that could mean that capitalism loses its stranglehold on the media, couldn't it? or....yeah. well, there are plenty of potentially nregatve sides, ofc,  depending on how the media adapt.

Much of the media has already adapted by not paying article writers, or paying them only a pittance.

So a lot of the thoughtful articles that you see in the media are written by amateur writers, writing for media publications largely as a hobby, or perhaps in the hope that they can build a profile that will lead to paid employment in a related field.

Consider also that the media is still a great way to spread ideas, even if there is not a lot of money to be made in running media corporations any more. Ideological that are well funded and able to pay influencers and writers who are prepared to spread their propaganda are likely to be better at spreading their message than those that are less well organized and less well-funded. You can see this a lot throughout the media now.

[Jack]

US news media outlets tend to regurgitate each other, so if one source is blocked then it's usually easy to find another one who has echoed it.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

US news media outlets tend to regurgitate each other, so if one source is blocked then it's usually easy to find another one who has echoed it.

That's pretty universal too.

Another thing that underfunded media outlets do these days is to print media releases pretty much word-for-word, as it saves on employing someone to investigate any claims made. Lobby groups, for example, will pay someone to put together an article for the media that is pretty much ready to publish. This is just one way that a strapped-for-cash media can be manipulated. It's not a new thing, but probably more noticeable these days.

[Icequeen]

https://outline.com/

Paste the link to the article into the box and click on create outline.

It still works with a few others as well...not with the Times any longer though.

[odeon]

I like Washington Post and fully understand that they have to charge money.

the could let people read enough articles per week  for free that folk can follow up citations , for example, withoutt having to subscribe to every newspaper on earth. they wouldn't be losng any revenue that way.  those who want to read that particu;ar paper on a daily basis would still have to subscribe.  And as for the rest of us? well,  what are the chances that we both care enough and can afford to subscribe to every online journal on earth? they just lose the chance to reel some of us in by hiding behind a paywall.

But I do think they would lose revenue that way. Publishing is not the money-making scheme it once was.

I guess it's up to each of us to choose what we want to pay for. I've chosen to subscribe to New York Times instead.