[steve19]

I think the problem is that some sites are charging for low quality click bait journalism. I am not going to pay for NYT or WP or the many magazines I used to subscribe to and dont anymore. I will pay for WsJ, The Economist and Bloomberg.

Its when they want both seo/viral traffic AND my subscription dollars that annoys me.

[xtian]

Not sure I would use Bloomberg as an example of high-quality journalism after their handling of “The Big Hack”.

[bilbo0s]

I think steve19 is illustrative of the issue in online news.

Essentially, people are only willing to pay for "news" with which they are in accordance. Whether or not a particular news source is factually accurate, is very much a secondary concern. (Witness Bloomberg.) So you generally have two huge markets, one for "news" with a conservative bent, the other for "news" with a liberal bent.

Of course you have several markets, that are much smaller, for other types of "news". But very few markets where factual accuracy is at a premium. Add to that the fact that the few markets where factual accuracy is at a premium are small, and it's not hard to see why no one really caters to them. (All of that doesn't even consider the very real problem that it's hard to address such markets with a product that those markets would accept).

So pointing out the inaccuracies in Bloomberg, or CNN, or WSJ, or NY Times, etc misses the point. These media companies are in the business of selling "news". They don't put a priority on the business of selling accuracy because the business of accuracy doesn't really pay very well.

Think of it this way, you likely know a lot of people who consume, say, FOX or CNN, but how many people are you acquainted with who watch C-Span?

[steve19]

I was making a point about not buying news organizations that are peddling clickbait.

I don't think my choice of subscriptions illustrates the point that I am a consumer who buys news that suits my point of view. You are making the assumption that Conservative={Bloomberg, WSJ, Economist} (I would not call two of those three conservative) and therefore I am a conservative who refuses to read Liberal={...}

What it actually represents is someone who is sick of modern political discourse, tired of clickbait with false headlines and just wants classical news that can keep me informed of world events, specially financial events that may impact my daily decision making.

I want to pay people who will keep me informed, not people who want a slice of my attention or a slice of my emotional energy.

[steve19]

Point taken!

[peteretep]

> The Economist

> Its when they want both seo/viral traffic AND my subscription dollars that annoys me.

Have you followed TE on Facebook or Twitter? There’s plenty of clickbait there, although they do now hive some of it off to 1843 Magazine and Espresso

[steve19]

I have not, my assessment is based on the paper magazine. Sad to hear they are chasing clicks.

[carbine]

They specifically create free content for social media.

[hhs]

That's been my observation too.

Something that might help: check your alumni programs, they may give access to subscriptions. Your public library may also have them; I was surprised at the amount of stuff offered online. I used to be a habitual paper subscriber of the New Yorker and the New York Review of Books but switched after I found libraries offering free e-access.

One paper that I'm happy paying for is the Financial Times (FT). They're worth it.

[kyleblarson]

Additionally the WSJ iPad app is gorgeous.