
Thread beginning with comment 433206
Bravo, old media!
by earksiinni on Mon 12th Jul 2010 05:47 UTC
Member since:

It's about time that WSJ and NYT started charging! It is a bold statement that pierces the unreality of an economy based on advertising, a statement that says "We stand by our goods with the only measure that means anything anymore: cash." I fully support this move, and I look forward to paying.

Lumping all media outlets that charge for content into one group isn't fair, and newspapers are not AOL. Groups that create content should not only have the right to charge, but they have an ethical imperative to do so. Bravo for getting some spine.

And for the record, it's really sad that we talk about newspapers or anyone else as "content providers". Such a life-sucking, soulless, corporate-bland term should only be reserved for the likes of Yahoo et al. Or that we judge the media by such absurd metrics as "value for money". I mean, what does that even mean? Was 50 cents the right price for Deep Throat? Are Tarantino and Antonioni to be judged by $8 ballot stubs, $10 with popcorn? The media gives us life, and we owe it our own life-force, which is, again, our money.

Edited 2010-07-12 05:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Bravo, old media!
by chmeee on Mon 12th Jul 2010 12:41 in reply to "Bravo, old media!"
chmeee Member since:

Whole-heartedly agree on this. Some people say money is a new invention, which it is, but compensation is as old as the primordial ooze that we crawled from. Even in the animal kingdom work is rewarded for value attained -- lions that protect the den become alpha, etc. The leech mentality of people these days is rather depressing, because it devalues those around them.

Pay it back, pay it forward, it doesn't matter, work needs to be compensated in some way else we wouldn't do it. The dollar, euro, peso, etc, are all just standardizations of barter compensation, and refusing to pay dollars or euros or pesos or whatever simply shows that the leech consumer holds no value in work.

To those others reading this: If you don't value the news feeds then don't read them. If you do value them, then pay them what they're worth. If you don't want to pay $10/month for their news because it's not worth it to you then don't read their stories, read somewhere else. Hell, someone might setup a pay-per-article site that might suit you more.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Bravo, old media!
by nt_jerkface on Mon 12th Jul 2010 23:27 in reply to "Bravo, old media!"
nt_jerkface Member since:


They also gave us Rathergate and an endless list of cases where information was withheld from the public or distorted to push an ideology. This pattern of deception is well documented and I find it sad that so many still support these monolithic outlets that clearly have no regard for objective reporting.

I don't owe them a damn thing. I never thought the paper was worth 50 cents given how often journalists would insult my intelligence with their skewed coverage. Or how about the silly "two sides debate" coverage where one side is clearly inept and only exists to give the appearance of debate.

The best paper I ever bought was used as campfire fuel. If anything journalists owe us an apology for pushing so much bullshit onto the public.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Bravo, old media!
by chmeee on Wed 14th Jul 2010 19:52 in reply to "RE: Bravo, old media!"
chmeee Member since:

And by not paying for their content, we demonstrate that they're not worth it, so they close shop. At least that's what would happen in my ideal world, where such outlets, or any business industry. are not heavily subsidized via bailouts, etc.

Reply Parent Score: 1