And, as MOSW pointed out, some "adapt" by not paying their writers, resulting in a bunch of amateur hacks producing content then quoted by the likes of Al.
Yep. And is Al gonna read quality journalism instead if it's hidden behind a paywall and he has to subscribe to read what it says? ofc not, if he subscribes to anything at all, it will be to something that confirms his bias. If all these outfits just give us just enough free reading per month that we can click on links to articles quoted on fora like this when the topic comes up in discussion, then the Als of this world get
some exposure to quality (and relatively unbiased) journalism, which has surely got to be better than none at all?
As for papers that have a left-wing bias, like the Guardian: I do, like I said, very much applaud them for offering unlimited free reading online, because otherwise they're pretty much undercutting their whole
raison d'etre aren't they? I've long thought it ironic that the price of their print edition is way beyond the means of the poorer people in the UK, which pretty much leaves them in the position of educating the educated and preaching to the choir; whilst the underclass get pulled towards the right by cheap, slogan-chanting tabloids . Nowadays, the internet gives them a chance to be freely availble to all, and they've seized that chance with both hands. Now, given that do need subscriptions to survive, that's a risky move; however supposing their left-wing bias is sincere, i should think it's an essential move, politically speaking; especially given that so many of our public libraries (where you could once-upon-a-time call in and read a wide selection of newpapers for free) have now been closed down.
I'm not suggest ing that WP and NYT should do the same, but it's a pretty poor do that you had to choose between them so categorically : full access to one, no access at all to the other. So, if they all do the same, then you can't check a variety of sources, when you suspect that significant information has been omitted - as I've done, on occasion, with a number of stories. Haven't you? and often that turns out to be painfully true . Beyonfd simp;e left-wing and right -wing bias, there are a whole bunch of other biases that influence reporters and editors, ofc , most often resulting in a "lie by omission" . The access to a wide range of sources that the internet has given us has made it possible for ordinary folk like us to get a more complete picture, when it matters. It's really sad to lose that facility, and could become deeply worrying, if it actually comes to the point that you can only get free access to those amateur sources that you despise.
I was taught, at school (in English Language classes) to avoid being over-influenced by media bias by reading a wide varietyy of news sources. Ofc that isn't practical on a daily basis (I don't even follow the new at all, on a daily basis, TBH. Sometimes I'm too caught up in other things) but i still do that whenever an issue is especially important or especially interesting to me. I have never fotgotten that excellent advice. Do they not teach that in schools anymore? does nobody care anymore? because it seems obvious ro me that, unless we happen to be pretty wealthy, we do need free access to a variety of news services in order to follow that advice.
That the Washingtn Post etc might lose a handful of paid subscriptions if they don't cut back on limited free viewing is by no ,eans a good enough argument to set against that general principle, IMO. I don't even believe that it's true. Getting
all your news via the limited free subscription route would be such a faff, in practice, that only the dirt-poor (unab;e to afford a subscription anyway) or stubbornly tight-fisted (to the point of masochism) would bother '. I'm sure most of us get our news primarily from a single, preferred souce, whether that's online, in print, or TV, then supplement that with limited free viewing, as appropriate, sometimes checking citations in articles eleswhere, sometimes clicking on message-board links, sometimes digging for further info or alternative poits-of-view. None of that sort of activity would really justify subscribing to absolutely everything, so facilitating it wouldn;t resu;t in lost subscriptions; but conversely, cutrtailing that sort of activity would prevent theoccasional reader from developing a taste for a given source, and deciding to make that their primary news source , so potential subscribers would be lost.
Personally, I can say that if I'd had
any disposable income, i would surely have subscribed to the NYT online at one pont, on the basis of a few really interesting articles of theirs that I'd read online (following a message board link) I was sorely tempted. anyway , because i used up my free allowance in no time, and could see quite a number of intrigueing headlines on their site that I wanted to follow . I has to sternly talk myself out of it.
Most people still
do have disposable income , I believe? so I'm sure they must habe reeled in quite a number of folk who felt the same as me, but who would never have been exposed to the NYT otherwise. I've also been tempted into buying the print edition of mags , from my local newagent,. after reading online content. Again I'm sure I'm not the only one, and who could possibly keep track of that? In short, limited free vewing works brilliantly as advertising, can't believe the benefits don't outweigh the losses
