# For or against paying for the news



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

I still haven’t been able to bring myself to paying for access to news sites.....Toronto Star, Globe and Mail etc.......have you?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> I still haven’t been able to bring myself to paying for access to news sites.....Toronto Star, Globe and Mail etc.......have you?


If they had an app to automatically download the news to my laptop, I'd consider it.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Money172375 said:


> I still haven’t been able to bring myself to paying for access to news sites.....Toronto Star, Globe and Mail etc.......have you?



of course i've bought online subscriptions, the question is Why haven't you?

people used to buy newspapers. An online subscr is no different. All the massive costs of running a full-spectrum news medium like the globe & mail are now being expensed onto the web edition. Advertising does not cover those costs. Never did cover all the costs for print media either.

one can shop quality news sites like the globe e-editon & the NY times e-edition judiciously. Both have frequent big promotions, i'm sure so do other quality media. Cost goes down to pennies per day.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

It would depends on the quality (and the political neutrality) of the publication. I pay-subscribe to National Post (news) but not the others. Now I'm wondering why Twitter doesn't charge its users when it's so much directed to all news subscriptions.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

No I don't. I see it as being up to the owners of ANY website to determine how they are going to make it pay. Look at any website you use for anything and all the advertising found on the pages. Look at their cookie policies and how they collect information from you that they then sell on, etc.

If the print media are going to successfully transition to online media then they need to learn how to do so successfully. Asking you to pay is just ONE possible way. Other online businesses find other ways, why can't the news media?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Longtimeago said:


> No I don't. I see it as being up to the owners of ANY website to determine how they are going to make it pay. Look at any website you use for anything and all the advertising found on the pages. Look at their cookie policies and how they collect information from you that they then sell on, etc.
> 
> If the print media are going to successfully transition to online media then they need to learn how to do so successfully. Asking you to pay is just ONE possible way. Other online businesses find other ways, why can't the news media?



it boils down to a choice between garbage & lies on freebie social media vs accurate professional journalism on recognized media websites

in the old days it was a choice between garbage in freebie tabloids vs accurate professional journalism


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Money172375 said:


> I still haven’t been able to bring myself to paying for access to news sites.....Toronto Star, Globe and Mail etc.......have you?


Same here. Actual news is available in many places free. CBC for example in Canada. CNN/Fox/Etc in USA. It's the additional editorial or other content that they want you to pay for. I do without, or read it on other sites where it sometimes is reposted.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> It would depends on the quality (and the political neutrality) of the publication. I pay-subscribe to National Post (news) but not the others.  Now I'm wondering why Twitter doesn't charge its users when it's so much directed to all news subscriptions.


Very little news is politically neutral. 
For neutral news I read Edgar and sedar filings.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

What is this accurate professional journalism of which you speak, and where does one find it? Are you suggesting there is a source of news somewhere that does not consist of click bait, bias and propaganda, and has no political agenda?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

agent99 said:


> Same here. Actual news is available in many places free. CBC for example in Canada. CNN/Fox/Etc in USA. It's the additional editorial or other content that they want you to pay for. I do without, or read it on other sites where it sometimes is reposted.



i don't agree that subscription content consists of nothing more than "editorial or other content."

in a first-rate media such as the globe or the NY times, accurate & detailed hard news from skilled reporters working directly in the field usually lies behind the paywall. This is not "editorial" or opinion content, it's breaking hard news.

what i see, in the globe & mail at least, is that opinion columns are free whereas hard news from the pens of experienced scribes like eric reguly is often published behind the paywall.

me i find a mix of paid subscription & free sites is good. I never have more than 1 paid subscr at a time & i tend to circulate among 2 or 3 media, sometimes with a lapse of paid subscr so during those periods i also have nothing except freebie sites.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> What is this accurate professional journalism of which you speak, and where does one find it? Are you suggesting there is a source of news somewhere that does not consist of click bait, bias and propaganda, and has no political agenda?


Just as an example, look at the Coronavirus and use of CFR, by almost everyone. 

The stat is correct, it is valid. 
However it is misleading, so its either
1. Ignorance /incompetence.
2. Pushing some agenda. 

Either case it's not professional, and almost everyone is doing it. 

That's why I don't trust the media, or politicians, etc etc.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Someone thinks the NY Times is accurate news :biggrin:


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Very little news is politically neutral.
> For neutral news I read Edgar and sedar filings.


 ... yes, that help and those are free. Let me clarify my post - I pay-subscribe to the National Post "news" publication mostly for the Financial Post section. And mostly read news from the rest of the paper/publication that is from my POV as being "neutral". Of course, no "news' is politically neutral. All are inherently biased.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Twitter is the best place to get the news directly from those involved or those witnessing the events in real time.

There is a lot of garbage content on all social media, including Twitter.....but the Twitter user can link to only those people that they trust.

For example.......I link to some intelligence people (retired mostly) who watch and report from various corners of the world. Their content has proven to be very reliable.

I link to experts on the coronavirus, and they link to other experts, who link to other experts..........and you get the best information available in real time.

CNN, CBC and networks are hours and sometimes days behind the news. They often get their news from Twitter and then take the time to verify it through their own sources.

Newspapers are days behind on the breaking news and are best for editorial and in-depth stories.

If people curate their social media, it can be a good provider of real time information, but you have to spend the time to discover and link to the best sources.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> If people curate their social media, it can be a good provider of real time information, but you have to spend the time to discover and link to the best sources.


Imo the best news outlets link directly to the primary source. 
As a skeptic, I become distrustful when they don't.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

That is what Twitter does.

A person on an airplane with a coronvirus victim tweets out about it, and the world knows instantly.

Missiles fly in Iran and it is instantly on Twitter for the world to see.......video included (that was later used by all media sources)

You just have to curate your own feeds to avoid all the idiots.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The most famous Twitter user is Trump. He tweets something at 3:00 a.m. and it posts instantly.

The next day CNN may or may not comment on his tweets during the night. News media has limited time to report all the stories. The editors decide what is news.

Twitter posts immediately and nobody is filtering it. People "trend" the news for others. Crappy news doesn't get trended much.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Looks like many of above posters spend their days gazing into small screens. Do they really need instant news? Once a day is enough for me. Usually from radio.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

sags said:


> That is what Twitter does.


Imagine if any reliable news media looked at the comments below a factual, verifiable story and retracted it because many of the comments were negative. How many tweets ( stupid word ) have been withdrawn by their author because they didn't get the reaction they expected. If what was written is true, then leave it up!

Twitter is unreliable at best. It's a popularity contest. It's a "look at me everybody, see what I did".


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

Oops, can't edit previous post, so as for paying for news, I pay for the news package with my TV subscription. I'll watch some while having my morning coffee just to see what new crisis is unfolding today.

I like BBC news best for a world view, but have also watch MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News (ugh) from time to time. In addition there's CBC and CTV 24hr news channels for the Canadian pov.

Stories on the pay-walled news websites, if important enough, will be all over other free sites, radio, and TV, so no, I wouldn't subscribe to any.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Philip defranco


----------



## fireseeker (Jul 24, 2017)

Money172375 said:


> I still haven’t been able to bring myself to paying for access to news sites.....Toronto Star, Globe and Mail etc.......have you?


As businesses, the Star and the Globe are dying. So are just about every other big media outlet, aside from the New York Times. Warren Buffett just sold his newspapers.

I know lots of people take pride in finding free versions of new stories online. And I know lots of people look at institutions like the Star and the Globe as chronically biased. 

So imagine they shutter. Will you miss them?

Remember, everything you read on Twitter and Facebook is wild and unverified. That's why they were used as a vector to disrupt elections in the West and to sow distrust about the importance of vaccinations.

Remember, too, that for reasons easily understood by psychologists, people tend to seek out information that confirms their pre-existing opinions. They unwittingly but willingly put themselves into filter bubbles. This shuts them off from countervailing information. 

Most important of all, think about the SNC scandal, which nearly brought down the Liberal government. We only heard about it because the Globe learned what was happening, verified what was happening and then published it. 

Think about Rob Ford, Toronto's crack-smoking mayor. He was skipping out of the office, drinking vodka in schoolyards and getting high with drug dealers. We know this because the Star heard about a video showing the mayor using crack. Star reporters saw the video and then spent months confirming that what they had seen was accurate before publishing. 

You don't have to agree with everything they write. You might like Ford or Trudeau.

You don't have to agree with their political positions. It can be healthier if you don't!

But important, rigorously verified information in the public interest doesn't just show up on Twitter, or CMF, for free. If the Star and Globe (just to continue using those two as examples; everything said here applies equally to the Postmedia chain) disappear Canadians will be left with the government-funded CBC for Canadian-focused news. 

Does that sound healthy?

I subscribe to both papers. (Full disclosure: I used to work for one.) They are not as good -- not as deep, as rich or as refined -- as they used to be. But, for me, they remain a good value. For roughly the cost of one movie a month, I get pretty good sports writing in the Star. I get the country's best business, investing and real estate coverage in the Globe.

Plus, when it's really important, I get eye-opening stories about Liberals, Conservatives and powerful institutions behaving badly -- sometimes illegally.

It costs a little money to keep society free.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Userkare said:


> Imagine if any reliable news media looked at the comments below a factual, verifiable story and retracted it because many of the comments were negative


Imagine if a local newspaper banned you for a comment on a story that corrected something that was factually inaccurate. That happened to me when I commented that the reported "facts" in the story about the Covington kid's story were incorrect. I was 100% accurate but was banned from commenting due to violating the terms of their policy. I have also seen comments disagreeing with the writer that didn't violate the terms disappear a short while later.

If media can't accept someone correcting a factual error or feel that they have to delete comments from those who simply disagree with them, then they're no longer media. They're just a propaganda rag.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Prairie Guy said:


> Imagine if a local newspaper banned you for a comment on a story that corrected something that was factually inaccurate. That happened to me when I commented that the reported "facts" in the story about the Covington kid's story were incorrect. I was 100% accurate but was banned from commenting due to violating the terms of their policy. I have also seen comments disagreeing with the writer that didn't violate the terms disappear a short while later.
> 
> If media can't accept someone correcting a factual error or feel that they have to delete comments from those who simply disagree with them, then they're no longer media. They're just a propaganda rag.


There is a reason that the government is giving these guys millions in handouts.

Truth hasn't been a defense for a LONG time, if it hurts someones feelings they'll can still call it a hate crime.

Questioning the "accepted narritive" is a TOS violation. It's like they forgot WHY freedom of expression is so important.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> There is a reason that the government is giving these guys millions in handouts.
> 
> Truth hasn't been a defense for a LONG time, if it hurts someones feelings they'll can still call it a hate crime.
> 
> Questioning the "accepted narritive" is a TOS violation. It's like they forgot WHY freedom of expression is so important.


A German a long time ago said:


“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

Prairie Guy said:


> Imagine if a local newspaper banned you for a comment on a story that corrected something that was factually inaccurate. That happened to me when I commented that the reported "facts" in the story about the Covington kid's story were incorrect. I was 100% accurate but was banned from commenting due to violating the terms of their policy.


I did say "reliable news media", your local newspaper may not be so. Have a look at the NY Times article that initially reported the incident as a bunch of MAGA fueled bullies... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/us/covington-catholic-high-school-nathan-phillips.html They corrected the article with a note that linked to a more accurate one.

I have seen many links in reddit to something that some twit tweeted that was unpopular, and the tweet was withdrawn - even though it was factually correct. It's more about popularity, based on the current hive-think. If the hive is angered, the post is withdrawn. Hence, not a reliable news source. I will grant that it might be a catalyst for someone to do indepenent research. What? What am I saying? Who am I kidding? That would never happen; independent research, pfffttt.


----------



## robfordlives (Sep 18, 2014)

Check with your library, via ours we get access to G&M and NY Times. Probably others but those are the ones I'm interested in.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Userkare said:


> I did say "reliable news media", your local newspaper may not be so. Have a look at the NY Times article that initially reported the incident as a bunch of MAGA fueled bullies... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/us/covington-catholic-high-school-nathan-phillips.html They corrected the article with a note that linked to a more accurate one.


Yes, they corrected the story, but it was long after the facts were known and only when it became for them to big to ignore. What they didn't do was verify the story in the first place because it suited their narrative.

Another trick some of the media does is to scream wildly inaccurate or misleading headlines and then a couple days later quietly alter the online article with the "correct" version. But often those stories are buried and only a small percentage ever read the corrected version. But that's the intent all along.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Eder said:


> A German a long time ago said:
> 
> 
> “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”


That's true The lie that long time racist and KKK Democrats all decided to switched sides and became Republicans is accepted fact for some people.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Prairie Guy said:


> Yes, they corrected the story, but it was long after the facts were known and only when it became for them to big to ignore. What they didn't do was verify the story in the first place because it suited their narrative.
> 
> Another trick some of the media does is to scream wildly inaccurate or misleading headlines and then a couple days later quietly alter the online article with the "correct" version. But often those stories are buried and only a small percentage ever read the corrected version. But that's the intent all along.


It's worse than that, most media didn't even watch the full video before they spouted their attack on the kid.

Kid gets accosted by a mob of racists, he doesn't react to their provocations, and they smear him in the media. I hope his settlement was good.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I pay for the Economist, and listen to the audio format while driving or doing chores. Don't actually read the magazine, which I would probably find hard to find to the time to get through every week. Audio version is ~6h which I can get through in 3h of listening at 2x speed. But I'm a bit of a crazy person who finds normal human speech rate too slow.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

The leading candidate for the Democrat nomination and potential presidency appears to be suffering from early onset Alzheimer's and the media has chosen to largely ignore it. Biden can't even complete a sentenced any more. Here in Canada, Trudeau uses taxpayer money to bribe the media and is also hoping to pass a law requiring government approval to report the news. On a personal level, I was banned from a local newspaper for correcting a factual error on one of their stories in the comment area. After 40 years of paying for the news (newspaper) they no longer have my business.

The "news" industry is broken and isn't worth paying for anymore, but it's their own fault.


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

I don't pay for any news.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Well researched, summarized and curated information is worth it.

You can learn a lot on YouTube or online tutorials. However a well crafted course can get you a better result faster. 

I'm willing to pay for a service that adds value. Right now the taxpayer subsidized news media is generally doing a crappy job. I'm not going to pay even more for it.


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

Mind you it is easy to get around the blocks they have in place and read it for free anyway. I came across this by accident one day


----------

