| Blows mainstream media out the water. Because its reporters are from the "mainstream media." Often reporters who could not get any further in their old companies, or who were cut from their organizations due to budget cuts. cancel subscriptions to major media institutions ...and that's why those budgets got cut, and large media organizations became more reliant on advertising money, instead of subscriber money. News isn't free. It's good that you appreciate strong journalism. But robbing Peter to pay Paul doesn't work. Even if your local newspaper is terrible, you should still support it financially so that good people can still try to do good work, and not disappear altogether. My local paper is bad. But I subscribe, and reading it (actually reading, not looking at a web site) have learned that there are good people there trying to do good work. Between the lines you can see that they are underfunded, and do a lot with very little. I also subscribe to large, award-winning important journalistic endeavors. "Real news," as it were. But I also know that award-winning journalism doesn't magically appear out of thin air, or straight from journalism schools. Those reporters have to learn their trade at small newspapers, television stations, and radio outlets to work their way up to the big leagues. If we don't support local reporters, there won't be any smart journalists in the future. |
Even if your local newspaper is terrible, you should still support it financially so that good people can still try to do good work, and not disappear altogether."
No. If you pay the same money to Paul who creates better content, you are voting with your wallet. Everyone should do that. Definitely dont stay with sucky provider but give the same money (or more) to someone better, that helps things to develop.