[groestl]

I want to pay for news. I just don't want to pay for every news platform there is on this world, searately, because some manager somewhere decides that this will push the brand (same applies for movies, songs, etc) (not to go against your argument, I'm just elaborating on it)

[alistairSH]

Agreed.

My solution was to subscribe to one reasonable newspaper (Washington Post). Between that, free BBC content, and NPR, I think I get a reasonable overview of world and local news.

But, that does mean I miss breaking investigative news from other sources. At least until it's picked up elsewhere or made available elsewhere. It's a bummer at time, but paying for a large subset of possible news sources would cost 10x+ what I pay now.

[falafel]

BBC, NPR and Washington Post are all left leaning organizations funded by governments and billionaires. I don't know if I would call this "getting a reasonable overview of world and local news".

[gamblor956]

BBC, NPR, and Washington Post are all neutral organizations.

WaPo is the home of neocons Hugh Hewitt and Jennifer Rubin. When I first started reading WaPo, they were considered (and they considered themselves to be) far right neocons. These days, Ms. Rubin would be classified as a moderate (and considers herself to be an independent) and Mr. Hewitt is frequently accused of being a RINO. They haven't changed their political stances (if anything, Hewitt is more conservative now than he was before); it is simply that the Republican Party has moved extremely far to the right in the past decade and what was once considered extreme is now moderate.

[tatrajim]

NPR is a "neutral organization"? I suspect that would wound the souls of many of the staff there.

See, for example: "New NPR Ethics Policy: It's OK For Journalists To Demonstrate (Sometimes)"

https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2021/07/29/1021802...

[heyoni]

Yuuuup. Like the above poster said, conservatives have gone way off the deep end…to the point where sometimes it’s really ducking hard to talk in any sort of neutral tone.

I read a lot of Reuters during the trump admin and boy you could hear their tone subtly slip the whole time and when the election results were being contested, journalists everywhere were straight up calling it baseless and inflammatory. Not very neutral but also just facts. And at some point, trying to sound neutral no matter the circumstances is going to sound insane.

[pydry]

It amuses me when people call the news organization that censored booing of Boris Johnson neutral.

The WaPo isnt even neutral by American standards - it has an unusually tight knit relationship with the pentagon.

Essentially those 3 organizations provide 3 different angles on what the pentagon wants you to hear.

[vlark]

Media Bias Chart to the rescue: https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart

[cyclotron3k]

The BBC is not government funded, it is paid for by British citizens.

[nequo]

That’s how we used to pay for newspapers though. Cable companies use bundling instead and you get a lot of crap that you don’t need but they price discriminate you into.

[alistairSH]

Sure, but how many people subscribed to >2 papers?

Growing up, the family had the Washington Post and Economist, plus the nightly news on one of the major broadcast stations. Some people might also get the WSJ. I can't think of anybody I knew who got more than that.

[iamthirsty]

I subscribe to >2 papers. Some people even go as far as purchasing a Bloomberg terminal to get the news – albeit financial – as soon as it hits the wire.

The group who does pay for news, as I've alluded to, are people in the financial sector, or those who's knowledge of the news affects or is inherent to their job.

Business people, basically.

On a personal note, in high-school I competed on a team competition – Academic Decathlon – and my testing subject was Current Events. So I may be somewhat outside the norm.

I subscribe to the Financial Times, the Economist, WSJ, Bloomberg, and more.

[nemothekid]

>Sure, but how many people subscribed to >2 papers?

My parents may have been more well off so this might not be representative, but it wasn't just papers; we also subscribed to several magazines. Growing up I remember we had:

* New York Times

* Wall Street Journal

* The Economist Magazine

* Time Magazine

* Nintendo Power

* Highlights for Children

I remember my Aunt subscribing to Vogue, Ebony and Reader's Digest, on top of the finance publications she and my dad were subscribed to. 30 years ago, Vice might have existed as a magazine, not a major publication.

[chmod775]

You could also hand the newspaper to a friend if you wanted to show them an article.

The modern equivalent is sending someone a link, which won't work so well.

[lostgame]

…so…Apple News+?