|
|
|
|
|
|
by jryle70
2709 days ago
|
|
|
> With all that said, I do want to address one underlying point. "What's the alternative?", you ask. That's not my problem. That's your problem as a media professional. As a media consumer, I'm perfectly happy to watch the vast majority of media outlets dry up and blow away because they never figured out how to respect the people they purport to serve Journalism is there not just to serve the consumers. It serves as a critical check and balance tool of democracy. We need healthy and functional journalism. Paying for the content is about as transparent as it can be to ensure the media is sustainable yet can maintain its integrity. Media works in a pyramid just like many other industries. There are handful of top level publications and a sea of unknown, low readership ones. Journalists often start with those low level publications. If they can't make a living working there no matter how good they are, how can they get to the top level ones that you're willing to support? > I'll stick with the ones that provide me with value I find reasonable and treat me with a measure of respect. Which ones are you currently stick with? Is Conde Nast one of them? Ars Technica -- which has a very good science section, has an annual membership of $35, with no ads. Do you consider them worth paying for? |
|
|
You're absolutely and completely right! Journalism accomplishes this critical function by serving the consumers. I refuse to believe that these essential checks can only be accomplished with privacy-invading ads, paywalls, and subscription models from the 70s.
With that said, you're describing a structure that only works when there's a functioning business model. When everyone's model falls apart, the whole pyramid starts gets structurally unsound. At this point the question at hand is not how to people keep advancing up the pyramid, but rather a more fundamental one of how the industry needs to function.
> Which ones are you currently stick with? Is Conde Nast one of them? Ars Technica -- which has a very good science section, has an annual membership of $35, with no ads. Do you consider them worth paying for?
Ars Technica is, in fact, the Condé Nast publication I mentioned subscribing to. I also like that they offer RSS feeds.
I also have a lifetime subscription to Nautilus and a yearly one to The Economist (the audio edition is perfect for my commute).