Paying for newspapers online

[babalu1997]

Learn to read, *****-for-brains...

mommy the boys are fighting, make them stop

[TimG]

I am not inclined to pay for online news.

 

Perhaps relevant, I do read about sports and check scores online. I used to do this almost exclusively at ESPN. But, it seems to me that more and more of their content is now restricted to Insiders (subscribers). I find this annoying. Now I use CBS Sports almost exclusively for reading recaps and checking scores even though the same content is still free at ESPN. I just hated being teased by the Insider content at ESPN.

[luke warm]

Enlighten me. Do you always scoff at people whose interests are different from yours?

interests and opinions - he went to mit, doncha know

[hrothgar]

Enlighten me. Do you always scoff at people whose interests are different from yours?

interests and opinions - he went to mit, doncha know

Jimmy, there are plenty of people whose opinions I disagree with that I don't ridicule.

 

Passed Out and I disagree on any number of of issues.

MikeH and I disagree on a lot

Josh and I disagree on a lot

I can go on for quite a while...

 

At the same time, there are lots of folks that I pretty much treat with contempt. As you're well aware, you're pretty much at the top of that list.

 

On the MIT front.

 

I'm proud that I graduated from MIT. I'm equally proud of my academic and professional achievements. However, I'm guessing that you probably bring it up more than I do.

 

I understand that evangelicals like yourself have a enormous distrust for the liberal East Coast establishment because we've wasted so much time learning facts and critical thinking rather than accepting God's revealed truth.

[kenberg]

Introductory analogy: In teaching mathematics, I realized that part of what we do is to select topics to think about: Students, for the next several days we will be thinking about the Inverse function theorem. Probably there is a perfectly good proof in the text that a decent student could read and understand, but there are a lot of books out there with a lot of material and I, as the instructor, am selecting something for them to think about. Basically, I am saying that this is important and worth your time. Hopefully I also have some useful insights to impart, but this topic selection is not a trivial matter. In college, I read Dante. Not an author I would have looked for at Barnes and Noble if left on my own.

 

This role of selecting topics is also part of what I get from my morning newspaper. Of course I do not treat it as Gospel, for that matter I don't treat the Gospel as Gospel. But that is not the same as saying that I think it is all bullshit. For example: In the Post this morning there is a column by David Broder discussing education. He has a favorable view of Arne Duncan's plans, I am a skeptic of most all educational plans and claims. Weren't our children supposed to be number 1 in the world in math and science by the year 2000? But Broder says that Duncan has two main agendas (or is that agenda, with agendum being the singular?), the Race to the Top money and the reform (no one ever just says change, it's always reform) of the NCLB. I treat this latter information as fact, or at least probable fact. He says the main opposition comes from the teacher's unions. Perhaps so.

 

I doubt many people would read Broder's column and say "Oh, Broder says it's good so it's good". But they might be interested in knowing that education policy is up for discussion and knowing something about some of the administration's plans.

 

I tell my students they should now think about the inverse function theorem and I give them some of my thoughts on it. Broder tells people they might want to think about education, and gives some of his thoughts on the subject. This is about what I expect from a newspaper. If I want greater depth on any topic I should go elsewhere.

 

I skip the articles about sports, and those about Sarah Palin. Although there was this really dorky picture of her on the front page the other day.

 

Anyway, I like the print and don't mind paying for it and I like the free stuff. I am a little astounded that the free stuff is still free. If I have to pay for it I will then make some selections. I don't object to paying for goods that I like having.

 

I realize that the media is (Maybe the media are? All this borrowed Latin drives me nuts.) trying to decide what to do along these lines. I suspect that there are quite a few readers out there who see things roughly as I do.

[Aberlour10]

I developed a daily routine in approach to german language online-news on political and economic issues. I start always with Der Spiegel (most renowned german investigative magazine) to read last german and world news. I pick some issues that I am interesting in, compare comments and opinions on it in other german sources with very different political biases:

 

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung ( traditional conservative )

Sueddeutsche Zeitung (more left winger )

Die Zeit ( classic liberal )

Die Welt ( conservative, more populist )

 

It covers pretty well the entire german political spectrum on views and opinions.

I am afraid, I would have to give this kind of approach up if all these newspapers will decide to launch fee for their services.

 

Robert

[y66]

I agree the editorial / curator function is way underappreciated. Also, a good newspaper will at least make an effort to present multiple points of view.

 

My wife pointed out today that if we cancel our newspaper subscription it will interfere with our pup's morning routine. I guess I could teach him to fetch my notebook. But then he'd probably start surfing and posting in forums which we do not want to encourage at his age.

[blackshoe]

One datum. Two data. Or, as Shelly Berman put it: "One hippopotamus, two hippopotami. One yo-yo, two yo-yi. Two jack-i."

[kenberg]

One datum. Two data. Or, as Shelly Berman put it: "One hippopotamus, two hippopotami. One yo-yo, two yo-yi. Two jack-i."

:D

[Winstonm]

I don't consider it reporting when someone writes, "Un-named source claims so-and-so," with no further evidence or fact-checking than the source himself. "Pentagon spokesman says no civilians killed". That is not reporting, but stenography at best and aiding and abetting propaganda at worst. Reporting IMO is digging out information to distinguish factually if one claim or the other is accurate and telling the reader which is which. The story should be that "No civilians killed in raid" (with proof) or "X-number of civilians killed (with proof) - Pentagon claims none". Facts, not claims.

 

Sadly, it is the former type of reporting that seems to occupy the pages of most print media - this may well be a natural reflection of the diminishing profitability of print and the need to slash costs to satisfy shareholders - but it turns out (IMO) to be a self-inflicted death spiral, for as newsprint cuts costs it turns away from the very advantage (time for investigation) it holds over other news resources.

 

Compromised reporting as a quid pro quo for access (especially inside the beltway) has become the norm. To survive, newspapers will need to reinvent themselves as a product that fills a void other than litter box liner.

 

.

[blackshoe]

"Certainly it's true. But is it accurate?" — Sally Field, in Absence of Malice.

[Rossoneri]

I currently have a free student subscription to Financial Times online, but I doubt I will pay for it if I have to.

[Rain]

I already pay, so I voted for yeah will pay >$10.

 

The main English paper in Singapore hasn't been free for years, and to keep in touch with things there I have to pay. Also subscribed to an American paper until this year.

 

May start subscribing to the sunday edition of the local papers. They have coupons.