I quit

[Pyraxis]

Library subscriptions seems a simple and already mentioned answer to the question of how to make it free for some. Then you have people paying for convenience of getting it direct to their own device or preferred format.

[Walkie]

The fact is that there are more free sources available out there than ever before. Before the interwebz, did you have regular, unpaid, access to anything like WP or NYT? Maybe through libraries and similar, but surely not in any significant numbers. Yet the best of the free sources available now frequently include a PayPal button, hoping for voluntary contributions, because it does cost money to produce good, reliable content.

It's interesting that now that there are so many sources available online for free, people start expecting the traditional sources to start giving their content away for free, too.

I get what you're saying, but i'm not sure you even read what I was I was saying, because that isn't an answer, just another facile gripe about people expecting freebies.

But to answer your question: when i was a kid, I had free access to a wide range pf quality journals and newspapers in the school ;ibrary (I doubt that kids have that now, given that our underfunded State schools can't even afford to supply free textbooks any more) ; and as a young adult, I had access to the same via the local library , as well as access to free further education and free higher education; all of which is now in the past.  This was before neoliberalism became the dominant theme in British  politics, on the so-called Left, as well as the Right.  I was brought up to beleve that the lower classes had just as much right to an eduction as everybody else, and to  expect the State to support that right; because that's how it actually was, for an all-to-brief peroiod in postwar Britain. And, naturally, those of us who were born in that period all mistook that for the natural result of "progress"and  "enlightenment", and never expected it to slam into reverse

I no longer expect that ofc , nor do I expect businesses to support that right instead. But when traditional souces such as the Guardian do support that right, via their online site, I applaud them , ofc, not because I personally like grabbing freebies, but because of the wider underlying social issues.

Hpw much does it actually cost these internet rags to let somebody who can't actually afford to subscribe browse for free?  Precious little I should think. The only [problem, then,  is how to squeeze money out of those who can afford it? There surely has to a better answer than simply continuing this retrogade motion back towards Victorian social mentality.

I did read your post. I just don't agree with you.

How do you allow some people to read your content for free while at the same time making sure that others pay so that you can continue delivering that content? How do you find out who deserves their content for free and who doesn't? How much does it cost? I don't know, and I'm pretty sure you don't either. You want them to, and so you make a sweeping assumption, but you don't know.

No such thing as a free lunch, Walkie. It's not Victorian society mentality, simply a fact of life.

Well, you didn't make it clear which parts of my post you disagreed with nor why?  From your "No such thing as a free lunch", one might easlily get the impression  that you disagree with the provision of free education, free library services and even free school lunches  (which are actually still available to kids of poor parents in the UK, at time of writing.  But given  the rate of erosion of public services, not likely to last) come to that.

But you didn't say that, not exactly.  So, for the moment,  i'm still clinging to my estwhile impression that you're essentially left wing. Apologies if I got you wrong.

I'm not making any sweeping assumptions, just questioning the wisdom (from a left wing perspective, that is.  Obviously, i don't expect the right wing to care) of letting market forces prove the decisive factor as to whether a news source survives or not, and who will have acess to it? There has to be a better way forward

Thus far, market forces, in that domain, have inevitably led to the explosion of the tabloid press in the UK and USA (dunno about Sweden) ; which in turn (one can unnervingly convincigly argue) has led to the election of Boris Johnson and Donald Trump.  You mght disagree wiith argument ( I shan't attempt to present it in detail here) but you surely can't imagine that the overall effect would be positive?

I was trying to aguue that not only do we all hasbe a right to quality information, irrespective of our means, but that access to quality information for all is a social necessity ...at least for those of us who would rather not be governed by likes of  Donal Trump, if we can possibly avoid it.  Well, maybe Dona;d Trump is  "simply a fact of life", along with every other manifestion of the "no free lunch" ethos; and nothing we can do about that but impotently make fun of the "ïdiots" who voted for him.

Like I said, I very much admire the Guardian Online for doing their bit in attempting to turn that journalistic tide; that is  by making paid subscription entirely voluntary. That might prove impacticably  idealistic , as you point out (though, hang on ,  the donation mode seems to work for Wikipedia doesn't it? ) But it's better to try  doing something like that, than just shrug, call the whole deal a "fact of life"and do one's damnest to cling to one's revenue at all costs.  If they went the same route as WP, and resorted to hiding their content begind a paywall, then I would cease to regard them as a genuinely left-wing paper, because that really does amount to givng up on one's left-wing ideals , IMO, and allowing the tabloids and suchlike  to win the day. Can't find that especially blameworthy in WP's case (as far as I know, they're not left winfg?) just a great pity. because if we end up with nothing but the left wing sector allowing free access to quality jourmalism and noth ing left to balance that out but Fox News, the Sun,  etc,  welll that wouldn't bode well either , would it?

Do you  really want free education for the masses to cease at age 16, and therafter become a privilege dependant on means? even when it comes to educating people in current affairs? It sounds like you do.  But in that case, i don't think that you've thought through the consequences .  It's not like the better-educated classes can insulate themselves from the wider social effects by hiding behing a pay wall , is it? Its not like they're happy with leaders like Trump and BJ  (Not all of them ,  anyway)

[Walkie]

Library subscriptions seems a simple and already mentioned answer to the question of how to make it free for some. Then you have people paying for convenience of getting it direct to their own device or preferred format.

It's great to see some constructive thinking on ths issue  .   errr, so sorry that i'm gonna have to desconstruct it, in this case.

Libraries provided something of an answer, back in the seventies and eighties , in the UK. Nowadays , infortunately, they really don;t.

[TLDR? I suggest skipping the following long-winded explanatory para}
We've sufferered a shockingly severe erosion of public servces in the interim , which has left public libtaries (inasmuch as we have a few left)   pretty useless for the majority. I mean, it's not like people are going to spend a fiver on busfares (plus an awful lot of travel time) every day just to read the daily rag is it? much  cheaper as well as a lot more convenient  to have it delivered to their door... if they can afford it.  The days when most folk had a public library within  easy walking distance, that was open all hours six days a week is long gone.  Of those that are left , they are often only open on tuesday and thurday mornings or somesuch much reduced schedule, no good for anything but borrowing books ( however , libtrary fines if you fail to return in good time have reached such prohibitive levels, that many of the poorer fo;k don't dare borrow books any more... especially not scatterbrains, like mysel  i used to be fricking determined to make the most of my local library, but eventiually got stung far too badly, far too many times over. ) 

Internet journalism offers a chance to  plug that resultant gap . Though thatt's not a complete solution in itself.  I mean,  i recently heard a news report to the effect that only a minority of Socal Housing tenants in The UK  have internet access.  Most simply can't afford it.   There was a really worthy initiatives , by one  local council to adress that by providing free internet to their tenants, but we really need there to be a political will on the national level to adress that gap.  Especially considering that the majority poor tenants (in the UK) now rent in the private sector (if they're not homeless) because we're desperately short of Social housing.

So , the way thngs stand, free acess to internet journalism only really helps a subset of the poor who can stretch to internet bills,  but can't throw in subscriptions of top of that.  Not a complete solution at all, but way better than nothing at all.  And a pretty good  solution if we can only get the whole world online.

 I might also add that modern day poor people, on average, actually  need convenience rather more than wealthy people do.  Most are not unemployed , but rather desperately scatching around for a way to survive on considerably less than what most would consider a living wage.  That kind of scratching around can seriously eat up your energy and leisure time. 

It's a grim situation, all-in-all . and getting grimmer by the year.  if we suppose that causes are essentially political , and potential  solutions essentially political, then providing those who get the short end of the stick with the means to assess to realistically assess that, and to vote accordingly, is of paramount importance IMO.

I don't think it matters if a few ""unworthy" people wind up able to take advantage, just so long as that effect isn't big enough to make the  system in question. unworkable. I dislike that argument because the "unworthy freeloader"is a pretty rare animal, IMO (and even turns out to be according to official statistics in some areas where it matters, eg benefits fraud)  and he's been used to justify all kinds of cuts in the UK. It's like it doesn't matter anymore  who goes without, just so long as nobody gets  more than they're strictly  entitled to .

In that light, voluntsry subscriptions might actually work. I'm pretty sure that most fo;k would be too ashamed to pretend to be too poor to pay, if they''re actually not . I think we've been taught to seriously understimate our fellow human beings  (  Didn't Mo post a link, not long ago,  to a Chomsky vid that explained exactly how and why that happens?).

But more likely, the online news  market just  isn't taking off, because for whatever reason,  it's not meeting the demand in any realistic way. Maybe too many folk get the paper edition already, and dont like paying twce, not just for the added convenience of accessing a different format? Maybe too many folk  only want to dip into any given  online sources occasionally, and a therefore not willing to commit? the possibilities are endless, no need to resort to blaming Freeloader Joe for every commercial failure. I freaking well hate that guy's spectre. I've watched a world-renowned Social Security system,  get reduced, little by little,  to a heap of stinking rubble, mostly  on the pretext that we can't let Freeloader Joe get a piece of it. Are we, now  going to do the exact same thingwith  the world's  media?

[Walkie]

PS For the sake of giving people as broad and balanced a POV as poss, it would be great if the various serious news services could unite to offer a joint subscription, which would give folk acess to all of their online services at no extra cost.  Yeah, yeah I know that doesn't fix the access to poor folk question,. But hey! I do believe that  it's equally important to educate the wealthy. In.  fact it's more important to educate the wealthy, because , in this consumerist society, increased wealth equals  increased power doesn't it?   Supposing, as I do,  that the comparatively  wealthy are not all natural -born bastards, it might be good if they were helped to  make  better-informed decisions, mightn't it?

[odeon]

I did read your post. I just don't agree with you.

How do you allow some people to read your content for free while at the same time making sure that others pay so that you can continue delivering that content? How do you find out who deserves their content for free and who doesn't? How much does it cost? I don't know, and I'm pretty sure you don't either. You want them to, and so you make a sweeping assumption, but you don't know.

No such thing as a free lunch, Walkie. It's not Victorian society mentality, simply a fact of life.

Well, you didn't make it clear which parts of my post you disagreed with nor why?  From your "No such thing as a free lunch", one might easlily get the impression  that you disagree with the provision of free education, free library services and even free school lunches  (which are actually still available to kids of poor parents in the UK, at time of writing.  But given  the rate of erosion of public services, not likely to last) come to that.

Huh? How do you get from what I said to that?

But you didn't say that, not exactly.  So, for the moment,  i'm still clinging to my estwhile impression that you're essentially left wing. Apologies if I got you wrong.

I'm not sue what that's got to do with anything. This is about newspapers moving online and charging for their content. Politics is down the hall, second door to the right.

I'm not making any sweeping assumptions, just questioning the wisdom (from a left wing perspective, that is.  Obviously, i don't expect the right wing to care) of letting market forces prove the decisive factor as to whether a news source survives or not, and who will have acess to it? There has to be a better way forward

NT and WP are both businesses and have to make money in order to support their businesses, pay their employees and freelancers, etc. Before there was an internet, no-one questioned their right to charge money for the daily printed copy. Why would today be any different?

If the left-wing perspective is to not allow them to do that, I'm against it. As for the better way forward, I'm all ears. But please make an actual practical suggestion instead of repeating wishful thinking - which, in my mind, is as sweeping as they come, the essence of it being "there has to be a better way".

Thus far, market forces, in that domain, have inevitably led to the explosion of the tabloid press in the UK and USA (dunno about Sweden) ; which in turn (one can unnervingly convincigly argue) has led to the election of Boris Johnson and Donald Trump.  You mght disagree wiith argument ( I shan't attempt to present it in detail here) but you surely can't imagine that the overall effect would be positive?

Nope. That's about the fact that you need lots of money to create that concerted avalanche of misinformation and election-buying that ended with them both being elected. The tabloid press in the UK is not the reason why Boris wound up in Number Ten.

And NYT and WP both tried to expose Trump - and Boris, to a lesser extent - along the way. All the way. The fact that they are not free is neither here nor there. But there are lots of free sources online that did the same. There are actually a lot more of them today in the age of the interwebz than in the past when libraries were the source of "free" content.

And I use quotes because that content really isn't free either, it's just that it's paid for by means that aren't as obvious as the price of a printed paper.

I was trying to aguue that not only do we all hasbe a right to quality information, irrespective of our means, but that access to quality information for all is a social necessity ...at least for those of us who would rather not be governed by likes of  Donal Trump, if we can possibly avoid it.  Well, maybe Dona;d Trump is  "simply a fact of life", along with every other manifestion of the "no free lunch" ethos; and nothing we can do about that but impotently make fun of the "ïdiots" who voted for him.

You're mixing arguments, but let's go with this for a moment and ask if NYT and WP should be forced to offer their content for free, in the name of providing quality information for all.

The rise of Trump is about the cult of the moron. People voted him there, people who think that all arguments are equal. People who equate Google search results with peer-reviewed scientific papers. People who are unable to critically read a piece of information, regardless of where it comes from.

And that's about something else entirely than NYT and WP charging us for their services.

Like I said, I very much admire the Guardian Online for doing their bit in attempting to turn that journalistic tide; that is  by making paid subscription entirely voluntary. That might prove impacticably  idealistic , as you point out (though, hang on ,  the donation mode seems to work for Wikipedia doesn't it? )

Yes and no. It is easy to disrupt Wikipedia for long enough to propagate any kind of news you like. It also doesn't provide daily news, not really. It gets its reports from whatever sources that its editors - anyone who's registered and edited content there in the past, really - read. There are countless example of online papers without enough resources getting their facts from a temp edit of Wikipedia.

Not saying that Wikipedia isn't useful, only that its existence doesn't prove the sustainability of its model when applied to news.

But it's better to try  doing something like that, than just shrug, call the whole deal a "fact of life"and do one's damnest to cling to one's revenue at all costs.  If they went the same route as WP, and resorted to hiding their content begind a paywall, then I would cease to regard them as a genuinely left-wing paper, because that really does amount to givng up on one's left-wing ideals , IMO, and allowing the tabloids and suchlike  to win the day. Can't find that especially blameworthy in WP's case (as far as I know, they're not left winfg?) just a great pity. because if we end up with nothing but the left wing sector allowing free access to quality jourmalism and noth ing left to balance that out but Fox News, the Sun,  etc,  welll that wouldn't bode well either , would it?

The fact that WP elects to put their content behind a paywall decides their political bias?

I don't read news based on the ideologies of my sources. I don't think anyone should.

Do you  really want free education for the masses to cease at age 16, and therafter become a privilege dependant on means? even when it comes to educating people in current affairs? It sounds like you do.  But in that case, i don't think that you've thought through the consequences .  It's not like the better-educated classes can insulate themselves from the wider social effects by hiding behing a pay wall , is it? Its not like they're happy with leaders like Trump and BJ  (Not all of them ,  anyway)

Nope. I didn't say so, so please don't put words in my mouth.

I could just as well argue that you are, in effect, proposing state-owned media. And that's surely a recipe for objective, balanced news, right?

[odeon]

PS For the sake of giving people as broad and balanced a POV as poss, it would be great if the various serious news services could unite to offer a joint subscription, which would give folk acess to all of their online services at no extra cost.  Yeah, yeah I know that doesn't fix the access to poor folk question,. But hey! I do believe that  it's equally important to educate the wealthy. In.  fact it's more important to educate the wealthy, because , in this consumerist society, increased wealth equals  increased power doesn't it?   Supposing, as I do,  that the comparatively  wealthy are not all natural -born bastards, it might be good if they were helped to  make  better-informed decisions, mightn't it?

And how would that work? Who would pay for it?

You are mixing issues here, with dubious assumptions and few facts. If you want to discuss a different society, built on free content and absolute justice for all, by all means, go ahead. But I'm not going to bother. For me, the discussion was fairly simple and about the right of NYT and WP and others to charge for their content to support their businesses. You're now moving to something else entirely, and I'm not interested.

[Walkie]

PS For the sake of giving people as broad and balanced a POV as poss, it would be great if the various serious news services could unite to offer a joint subscription, which would give folk acess to all of their online services at no extra cost.  Yeah, yeah I know that doesn't fix the access to poor folk question,. But hey! I do believe that  it's equally important to educate the wealthy. In.  fact it's more important to educate the wealthy, because , in this consumerist society, increased wealth equals  increased power doesn't it?   Supposing, as I do,  that the comparatively  wealthy are not all natural -born bastards, it might be good if they were helped to  make  better-informed decisions, mightn't it?

And how would that work? Who would pay for it?

You are mixing issues here, with dubious assumptions and few facts. If you want to discuss a different society, built on free content and absolute justice for all, by all means, go ahead. But I'm not going to bother. For me, the discussion was fairly simple and about the right of NYT and WP and others to charge for their content to support their businesses. You're now moving to something else entirely, and I'm not interested.

ummm, the above would work the same as all-in-one TV subscriptions and the like work (don't ask me how.  I don't even subscribe to those things, let alone run them)  and would be paid for by whomever wanted that sort of service, ofc.

 I wasn't suggesting "free content" in that post you quoted.  I thought that the word "subscription" implies monetary payment? and that the term 'no extra cost" equally implies that it would cost something. What more should I have said to make that obvious?

 Basically, in that post,  I'm just looking for ways of making online news subscriptions more wide-ranging and thus  more attractive and informative  for those who can afford them. No need to limit yourself to whichever publication supports your own bias; you can check out the other side at no extra cost . I dont know , ofc, but i suspect that a package like that would sell a lot better than present single-publication online subscriptions, so it would be win -win situation from a business perspective

... Oh yeah, i see that I also said "" I  know that doesn't fix the access to poor folk question" so looks to me like i spelled out  that I was talking of paid-for access in  three different ways.  (yet you still missed it) The benefit to society at large would be better-informed middle class, I would hope. Certainly not a  universal panacea, but any small gain in the direction of making people, in general,  think a bit more flexibly  is worth pursuing IMO.

but, well,   now I know that you're  not reading my posts on this topic...not unless picking out a few keywords and stringing   them together with  your own preconceptions counts as reading.  then accusing me of making ""dubious  assumptions" Sheeeesh. So if you're gonna  stop pretending to read them ,  i guess i should be grateful for that much. You'd never guess , on this showing, but i actually don't much enjoy talking to myself . 

[Walkie]

oh! clean missed your other reply above, Odeon, which quite possibly  deserves some sort of a reply from myself.  Will get back to that later (haven't even read it as yet)

[Walkie]

 Eek! looks like I'll just have to bore you (and everybody else ) by responding , point by point,  piecemeal, Odeon, cos my brain, my browser and my clumsy fingers especially have enormous difficulty with handling such a plethera of quotes. Well, let's start. 

I did read your post. I just don't agree with you.

How do you allow some people to read your content for free while at the same time making sure that others pay so that you can continue delivering that content? How do you find out who deserves their content for free and who doesn't? How much does it cost? I don't know, and I'm pretty sure you don't either. You want them to, and so you make a sweeping assumption, but you don't know.

No such thing as a free lunch, Walkie. It's not Victorian society mentality, simply a fact of life.

Well, you didn't make it clear which parts of my post you disagreed with nor why?  From your "No such thing as a free lunch", one might easlily get the impression  that you disagree with the provision of free education, free library services and even free school lunches  (which are actually still available to kids of poor parents in the UK, at time of writing.  But given  the rate of erosion of public services, not likely to last) come to that.

Huh? How do you get from what I said to that?

Err, because you actually said ""No such thing as a free lunch, Walkie. It's not Victorian society mentality, simply a fact of life.'" what's more, you said that in direct response to the following post from me:

But to answer your question: when i was a kid, I had free access to a wide range pf quality journals and newspapers in the school ;ibrary (I doubt that kids have that now, given that our underfunded State schools can't even afford to supply free textbooks any more) ; and as a young adult, I had access to the same via the local library , as well as access to free further education and free higher education; all of which is now in the past.  This was before neoliberalism became the dominant theme in British  politics, on the so-called Left, as well as the Right.  I was brought up to beleve that the lower classes had just as much right to an eduction as everybody else, and to  expect the State to support that right; because that's how it actually was, for an all-to-brief peroiod in postwar Britain. And, naturally, those of us who were born in that period all mistook that for the natural result of "progress"and  "enlightenment", and never expected it to slam into reverse

I no longer expect that ofc , nor do I expect businesses to support that right instead. But when traditional souces such as the Guardian do support that right, via their online site, I applaud them , ofc, not because I personally like grabbing freebies, but because of the wider underlying social issues.

Hpw much does it actually cost these internet rags to let somebody who can't actually afford to subscribe browse for free?  Precious little I should think. The only [problem, then,  is how to squeeze money out of those who can afford it? There surely has to a better answer than simply continuing this retrogade motion back towards Victorian social mentality. 

obviously (?)  "No such thing as a free lunch" was a pretty damned sweeping dismissal of my point about the lower classes losing their right free education and free acess to educational material (and I do, implicitly include quality news reporting in my definition of educational material) .   You might consider that irrelevant, but if you're gonna post  "No such thing as a free lunch" in response to all that  then you're gonna sound pretty reactionary. Especially given that it's the second time that you've jumped on me for  applauding the Guardian's efforts to keep their online content freely accessible to all.

Oh! And please note, they haven't yet failed in those efforts and consequently  gone under as a business.  So in citing the Guardian , it's entirely possible that I'm citing a viable business model. But their optional subscription is not the only idea knocking around ; limited free access has also been discussed in this thread for instance; and you, yourself ,  mentioned the donate option that some publications have gone in  for. If I haven't let myself be baited into trying to thrown in some totally origial idea all of of my own , so what? i don't think there's any need for that. I think that where there's a will, then there's probably a way, and i'm encouraged to see that some better minds than mine actually do have the will to adress this . Call that "wishful thinking"if you like.



 

[Walkie]

But you didn't say that, not exactly.  So, for the moment,  i'm still clinging to my estwhile impression that you're essentially left wing. Apologies if I got you wrong.

I'm not sue what that's got to do with anything. This is about newspapers moving online and charging for their content. Politics is down the hall, second door to the right.

Come now, you can't seriously seperate journalism from politics? Not unless you're only reading the Sunday issues. Any question about journalism is essentially a political question, with at least two sides to it.

I'm not making any sweeping assumptions, just questioning the wisdom (from a left wing perspective, that is.  Obviously, i don't expect the right wing to care) of letting market forces prove the decisive factor as to whether a news source survives or not, and who will have acess to it? There has to be a better way forward

NT and WP are both businesses and have to make money in order to support their businesses, pay their employees and freelancers, etc. Before there was an internet, no-one questioned their right to charge money for the daily printed copy. Why would today be any different?

Nobody's questioning their need to make money, nor their right to do so.  That's just how you chose to  (mis) read my comments.

Before we had the internet, we had better public services and hence better access, as i detailed in previous posts. Somehow, despite the fact that  printed copies cost a shedload more (in raw materials, printing costs and distribution) than digital issues, news agencies were not ruined by the fact that the lower classes and others could quite easily access their material for free. 

Now that we have the internet, it's not only highly ironic, but pretty damned incredible if we can't find a way to supply the necessary revenue without denying access to the (increasingly impiverished ) lower classes. And if some internet nobody like Walkie isn't supplying you with a detailed, foolproof, appropriate  business model on demand,  that really doesn't shake the validility of that observation.

If the left-wing perspective is to not allow them to do that, I'm against it. As for the better way forward, I'm all ears. But please make an actual practical suggestion instead of repeating wishful thinking - which, in my mind, is as sweeping as they come, the essence of it being "there has to be a better way".

The left wing perspective, as I understand it, is to care about free education for the massess, and to do everything possible to support it.  You were not exactly  talking like you cared."' As for the better way forward, I'm all ears." sounds a whole  lot more promsing, but as for your  other point, i think I already answered that , above

[Walkie]

Thus far, market forces, in that domain, have inevitably led to the explosion of the tabloid press in the UK and USA (dunno about Sweden) ; which in turn (one can unnervingly convincigly argue) has led to the election of Boris Johnson and Donald Trump.  You mght disagree wiith argument ( I shan't attempt to present it in detail here) but you surely can't imagine that the overall effect would be positive?

Nope. That's about the fact that you need lots of money to create that concerted avalanche of misinformation and election-buying that ended with them both being elected. The tabloid press in the UK is not the reason why Boris wound up in Number Ten.

what a pity. I misread that as " The tabloid press in the UK is not the only reason why Boris wound up in Number Ten."  and almost agreed with you 

And NYT and WP both tried to expose Trump - and Boris, to a lesser extent - along the way. All the way. The fact that they are not free is neither here nor there.

However,   the fact that they're quality papers with a correspondingly hefty cover price might be relevant , when you put that beside the fact the National Enquirer did not attempt to expose Trump (or so I've been given to undestand) but converesely  buried all the dirt they'd collected  on him , in the interests of preserving their highly profitable good relationship with him.  Not that NE had a political bias in Trump's favour as such, just a bias towards selling as many copies as they could;  which in this instance worked to much the same effect.

So one burning question, to my mind,  is WTF can we do to stop publications like the NE have an overriding influence on most voters?  Cheaper and easier access to more responsible reporting  might conceivably help there, mightn't it?

But there are lots of free sources online that did the same. There are actually a lot more of them today in the age of the interwebz than in the past when libraries were the source of "free" content.

And I use quotes because that content really isn't free either, it's just that it's paid for by means that aren't as obvious as the price of a printed paper.

You don't say? Well, well , well , I learn something new every day.  (Hasn't happenened yet, but it's only 3 PM)

And now , I have RL stuff to do, i fear. i'll try to get back to answer the rest of that post of yours later (please don't everybody  groan at once  )

[Walkie]

You're mixing arguments, but let's go with this for a moment and ask if NYT and WP should be forced to offer their content for free, in the name of providing quality information for all.

Hang on. I don't think they should be forced to do anything of the kind. Persuaded maybe, encouraged maybe, facilitated maybe. Forced? No, definitely not.

The rise of Trump is about the cult of the moron. People voted him there, people who think that all arguments are equal. People who equate Google search results with peer-reviewed scientific papers. People who are unable to critically read a piece of information, regardless of where it comes from.

That's about as useless and counterproductive an observation as possible. Lets blame the stupid people?  Or better yet, shall we blame the stupid peoples'parents?

I'd much sooner hear some theories as how people in general got to be so stupid. One such theory credibly blames the tabloids for that as I'm sure you know  along with  various other knock-on efffects  of commercialism. Or you could credibly take issue with education .  Or you  might claim that there's "something in the water"... etc. chances are that whichever explanation you go with, it comes down to the underling cause(s) being  social and/or  political, and the corresponding potential  solutions being equally social and political.  Which is good news, i think. I mean,   it's gotta to be easier to address than the prospect adressing the huge excess of utterly stupid people who just happened, by sheer coincidence,  to get born at approximately the same point in history, and asking them to personally take responsibility for their gigantic fuck-ups.  I really don't see that getting us anywhere.

On an educational level, we could perhaps try to  implement a system that purposely trains kids in critical thinking.  And which provides them with a wide variety of media to practice on    And hey! maybe it's not too late to try that on the adults, too?

And that's about something else entirely than NYT and WP charging us for their services.

Nope, it's all interconnected, IMO,  as I hope my above example helps to demonstate? 

Like I said, I very much admire the Guardian Online for doing their bit in attempting to turn that journalistic tide; that is  by making paid subscription entirely voluntary. That might prove impacticably  idealistic , as you point out (though, hang on ,  the donation mode seems to work for Wikipedia doesn't it? )

Yes and no. It is easy to disrupt Wikipedia for long enough to propagate any kind of news you like. It also doesn't provide daily news, not really. It gets its reports from whatever sources that its editors - anyone who's registered and edited content there in the past, really - read. There are countless example of online papers without enough resources getting their facts from a temp edit of Wikipedia.

Not saying that Wikipedia isn't useful, only that its existence doesn't prove the sustainability of its model when applied to news.

Fair enough.

But it's better to try  doing something like that, than just shrug, call the whole deal a "fact of life"and do one's damnest to cling to one's revenue at all costs.  If they went the same route as WP, and resorted to hiding their content begind a paywall, then I would cease to regard them as a genuinely left-wing paper, because that really does amount to givng up on one's left-wing ideals , IMO, and allowing the tabloids and suchlike  to win the day. Can't find that especially blameworthy in WP's case (as far as I know, they're not left wing?) just a great pity. because if we end up with nothing but the left wing sector allowing free access to quality jourmalism and noth ing left to balance that out but Fox News, the Sun,  etc,  welll that wouldn't bode well either , would it?

The fact that WP elects to put their content behind a paywall decides their political bias?

No.  Try reading that para again, if it matters.   I think that a paper which had a sincere left  wing bias would try to keep their content accessible to all, like the Guardian does; as that effort is consistent with left wing beliefs.   I'm therefore guessing that WP is no such paper?  Might be wrong (note I put a question mark on that?)

I don't read news based on the ideologies of my sources. I don't think anyone should.

Seems to me that news sources can't help but be biased by political ideology, though not always consciously biased. In the case of the tabloids, bias is flaming obvious, normally. In the case of the quality press, not so obvious,  and reveals itself in its selection of newsworthy topics., rather than in its treatment of those topics.

I tend to think that a conscious, acknowledged bias is prefereable to  unconscious bias . I'd sooner have no particular bias at all, but I just don't believe that's humanly possible . Next best is to sample a range of conficting biases, ofc.  Which is why I'm so keen on the idea of a multi-journal package.  And next best , after that,  for me, is to go with  a left-wing bias, because i find that papers with a right-wing bias are apt to exclude too many  stories that i find very  relevant and intersting from their pages; and not because those stories are in any way fake, but rather because the average  right-wing reader would wish to dismiss them as fake; thus  printing at all them might easily amount to economic suicide; maintaining circulation is, understandably,  of paramount importance.

Do you  really want free education for the masses to cease at age 16, and therafter become a privilege dependant on means? even when it comes to educating people in current affairs? It sounds like you do.  But in that case, i don't think that you've thought through the consequences .  It's not like the better-educated classes can insulate themselves from the wider social effects by hiding behing a pay wall , is it? Its not like they're happy with leaders like Trump and BJ  (Not all of them ,  anyway)

Nope. I didn't say so, so please don't put words in my mouth.

OK, I'll try to resist.  But are you willing to reciprocate?    At least i try not to sound so certain of my misreadings  (as it turns out)  as you do of yours.

I could just as well argue that you are, in effect, proposing state-owned media. And that's surely a recipe for objective, balanced news, right?

Like I said, I very much admire the Guardian Online for doing their bit in attempting to turn that journalistic tide; that is  by making paid subscription entirely voluntary. That might prove impacticably  idealistic , as you point out (though, hang on ,  the donation mode seems to work for Wikipedia doesn't it? )[/quote]

Yes and no. It is easy to disrupt Wikipedia for long enough to propagate any kind of news you like. It also doesn't provide daily news, not really. It gets its reports from whatever sources that its editors - anyone who's registered and edited content there in the past, really - read. There are countless example of online papers without enough resources getting their facts from a temp edit of Wikipedia.

Not saying that Wikipedia isn't useful, only that its existence doesn't prove the sustainability of its model when applied to news.

But it's better to try  doing something like that, than just shrug, call the whole deal a "fact of life"and do one's damnest to cling to one's revenue at all costs.  If they went the same route as WP, and resorted to hiding their content begind a paywall, then I would cease to regard them as a genuinely left-wing paper, because that really does amount to givng up on one's left-wing ideals , IMO, and allowing the tabloids and suchlike  to win the day. Can't find that especially blameworthy in WP's case (as far as I know, they're not left winfg?) just a great pity. because if we end up with nothing but the left wing sector allowing free access to quality jourmalism and noth ing left to balance that out but Fox News, the Sun,  etc,  welll that wouldn't bode well either , would it?

The fact that WP elects to put their content behind a paywall decides their political bias?

I don't read news based on the ideologies of my sources. I don't think anyone should.

Do you  really want free education for the masses to cease at age 16, and therafter become a privilege dependant on means? even when it comes to educating people in current affairs? It sounds like you do.  But in that case, i don't think that you've thought through the consequences .  It's not like the better-educated classes can insulate themselves from the wider social effects by hiding behing a pay wall , is it? Its not like they're happy with leaders like Trump and BJ  (Not all of them ,  anyway)

Nope. I didn't say so, so please don't put words in my mouth.

I could just as well argue that you are, in effect, proposing state-owned media. And that's surely a recipe for objective, balanced news, right?
[/quote]
 
Quite  and no, perish the thought of a state-owned media.  I'm not propsing any such thing.  Something more along the lines of a state-funded library service would suit me just fine...on condition that "librarians" are perfectly free to choose the content,  ofc. 

[odeon]

PS For the sake of giving people as broad and balanced a POV as poss, it would be great if the various serious news services could unite to offer a joint subscription, which would give folk acess to all of their online services at no extra cost.  Yeah, yeah I know that doesn't fix the access to poor folk question,. But hey! I do believe that  it's equally important to educate the wealthy. In.  fact it's more important to educate the wealthy, because , in this consumerist society, increased wealth equals  increased power doesn't it?   Supposing, as I do,  that the comparatively  wealthy are not all natural -born bastards, it might be good if they were helped to  make  better-informed decisions, mightn't it?

And how would that work? Who would pay for it?

You are mixing issues here, with dubious assumptions and few facts. If you want to discuss a different society, built on free content and absolute justice for all, by all means, go ahead. But I'm not going to bother. For me, the discussion was fairly simple and about the right of NYT and WP and others to charge for their content to support their businesses. You're now moving to something else entirely, and I'm not interested.

ummm, the above would work the same as all-in-one TV subscriptions and the like work (don't ask me how.  I don't even subscribe to those things, let alone run them)  and would be paid for by whomever wanted that sort of service, ofc.

 I wasn't suggesting "free content" in that post you quoted.  I thought that the word "subscription" implies monetary payment? and that the term 'no extra cost" equally implies that it would cost something. What more should I have said to make that obvious?

 Basically, in that post,  I'm just looking for ways of making online news subscriptions more wide-ranging and thus  more attractive and informative  for those who can afford them. No need to limit yourself to whichever publication supports your own bias; you can check out the other side at no extra cost . I dont know , ofc, but i suspect that a package like that would sell a lot better than present single-publication online subscriptions, so it would be win -win situation from a business perspective

... Oh yeah, i see that I also said "" I  know that doesn't fix the access to poor folk question" so looks to me like i spelled out  that I was talking of paid-for access in  three different ways.  (yet you still missed it) The benefit to society at large would be better-informed middle class, I would hope. Certainly not a  universal panacea, but any small gain in the direction of making people, in general,  think a bit more flexibly  is worth pursuing IMO.

but, well,   now I know that you're  not reading my posts on this topic...not unless picking out a few keywords and stringing   them together with  your own preconceptions counts as reading.  then accusing me of making ""dubious  assumptions" Sheeeesh. So if you're gonna  stop pretending to read them ,  i guess i should be grateful for that much. You'd never guess , on this showing, but i actually don't much enjoy talking to myself .

I know you only realised there was more after posting the above, but seriously, Walkie, if you're interested in a serious conversation, make sure *you* bread everything first. Makes your argument look worse.

[odeon]

oh! clean missed your other reply above, Odeon, which quite possibly  deserves some sort of a reply from myself.  Will get back to that later (haven't even read it as yet)

Hint: there is a "Modify" button.

[odeon]

Eek! looks like I'll just have to bore you (and everybody else ) by responding , point by point,  piecemeal, Odeon, cos my brain, my browser and my clumsy fingers especially have enormous difficulty with handling such a plethera of quotes. Well, let's start. 

I did read your post. I just don't agree with you.

How do you allow some people to read your content for free while at the same time making sure that others pay so that you can continue delivering that content? How do you find out who deserves their content for free and who doesn't? How much does it cost? I don't know, and I'm pretty sure you don't either. You want them to, and so you make a sweeping assumption, but you don't know.

No such thing as a free lunch, Walkie. It's not Victorian society mentality, simply a fact of life.

Well, you didn't make it clear which parts of my post you disagreed with nor why?  From your "No such thing as a free lunch", one might easlily get the impression  that you disagree with the provision of free education, free library services and even free school lunches  (which are actually still available to kids of poor parents in the UK, at time of writing.  But given  the rate of erosion of public services, not likely to last) come to that.

Huh? How do you get from what I said to that?

Err, because you actually said ""No such thing as a free lunch, Walkie. It's not Victorian society mentality, simply a fact of life.'" what's more, you said that in direct response to the following post from me:

But to answer your question: when i was a kid, I had free access to a wide range pf quality journals and newspapers in the school ;ibrary (I doubt that kids have that now, given that our underfunded State schools can't even afford to supply free textbooks any more) ; and as a young adult, I had access to the same via the local library , as well as access to free further education and free higher education; all of which is now in the past.  This was before neoliberalism became the dominant theme in British  politics, on the so-called Left, as well as the Right.  I was brought up to beleve that the lower classes had just as much right to an eduction as everybody else, and to  expect the State to support that right; because that's how it actually was, for an all-to-brief peroiod in postwar Britain. And, naturally, those of us who were born in that period all mistook that for the natural result of "progress"and  "enlightenment", and never expected it to slam into reverse

I no longer expect that ofc , nor do I expect businesses to support that right instead. But when traditional souces such as the Guardian do support that right, via their online site, I applaud them , ofc, not because I personally like grabbing freebies, but because of the wider underlying social issues.

Hpw much does it actually cost these internet rags to let somebody who can't actually afford to subscribe browse for free?  Precious little I should think. The only [problem, then,  is how to squeeze money out of those who can afford it? There surely has to a better answer than simply continuing this retrogade motion back towards Victorian social mentality. 

obviously (?)  "No such thing as a free lunch" was a pretty damned sweeping dismissal of my point about the lower classes losing their right free education and free acess to educational material (and I do, implicitly include quality news reporting in my definition of educational material) .   You might consider that irrelevant, but if you're gonna post  "No such thing as a free lunch" in response to all that  then you're gonna sound pretty reactionary. Especially given that it's the second time that you've jumped on me for  applauding the Guardian's efforts to keep their online content freely accessible to all.

Oh! And please note, they haven't yet failed in those efforts and consequently  gone under as a business.  So in citing the Guardian , it's entirely possible that I'm citing a viable business model. But their optional subscription is not the only idea knocking around ; limited free access has also been discussed in this thread for instance; and you, yourself ,  mentioned the donate option that some publications have gone in  for. If I haven't let myself be baited into trying to thrown in some totally origial idea all of of my own , so what? i don't think there's any need for that. I think that where there's a will, then there's probably a way, and i'm encouraged to see that some better minds than mine actually do have the will to adress this . Call that "wishful thinking"if you like.

I stand by what I said but not your interpretation of it. You are the one twisting it, not me.

I'm not going to do your homework for you, though. If you want to argue for opening up that paywall, you'll have to explain how, and that means not simply reiterating earlier comments (re, for example, PayPal buttons an the like). You'll have to show that you understand a bit more than you let on about economics and the actual realities of running a business and employing people who know how to write.

If you don't think there is a need for that, then you're only arguing some starry-eyed ideology without a basis in reality and in that case I'm not interested and this discussion is over.

Oh, and btw: you're clearly assuming that NYT et al haven't looked into other business models. How do you know?