[thoughtexplorer]

Once upon a time newspapers were trying to sell you more newspapers by being a good source of news and journalism, generally.

TV news used to be a loss leader until the past 20 years or so. You could see essentially the same news regardless of what channel you preferred. Now the world looks completely different depending on what source you consume.

It's a relatively recent phenomenon that news has been corrupted by advertising, clickbait and catering to specific audiences as they fight for smaller and smaller pieces of the pie.

[gaius]

Traditionally in the newspaper business advertising revenue paid for paper, ink, printing and distribution, and sales of the paper itself paid for journalism. Cut off the latter and what’s left?

I recently cancelled my sub to the NYT after nearly 20 years; now they are trying to tempt me back with the slogan “debate, not division”. But they still employ guys like Charlie Blow who just vomit bile across the page to drive more clicks so that’s a no from me. In retrospect they have been on the decline for years, and paying customers like me saw no fewer ads and were subjected to no less tracking than free readers.

On the back of Carryrou’s work on Theranos I have a sub to WSJ now. I am totally willing to pay for content, but I won’t tolerate piss-taking.