Are subscription news sites better quality?

Jun 4, 2013
7,139
2,892
Albuquerque, NM
I know a lot of people, I'd even say the majority of folks get news from social media and free new sites. Do you think paying for a subscription to news site like the New York Times or The Washington Post is worth it?

Are they more credible news sources?

In today's day and age how do you find quality news and avoid echo chambers?
 

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
34,560
11,766
I have a WaPo subscription. I like it. Costs fuck all (cheaper rate for foreigners I believe), provides lots of content, has a clear perspective but isn't an echo chamber. Lots of times you'll see an opinion section with two columns right next to each other, one is titled "Biden's campaign is in big trouble" and the other "President Biden is inevitable." Or stuff like that.

But I like it. The journalism is (generally) higher quality, and when's the last time anyone caught me posting lying garbage memes and thinking they're actual real news? Exactly.

:hat
 
May 16, 2013
4,284
1,539
I think its unlikely to be more credible than the general news sites you are just more likely to get more content on specific topics relative to the company
But these are the words of somebody thats never payed for a sub
 

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
34,560
11,766
I think its unlikely to be more credible than the general news sites you are just more likely to get more content on specific topics relative to the company
But these are the words of somebody thats never payed for a sub
I can assure you that the Washington Post is more reliable than the Gateway Pundit or Zero Hedge or any of the other garbage conspiracy blogs that the retards routinely post on here.

Have a look at the WaPo's series on the opioid epidemic, for a start. Outstanding reporting, deeply researched and hugely indepth.

:hat
 
Reactions: Yolo Swaggins

mandela

CHB Führer
May 16, 2013
22,685
10,112
Scotland
Generally it will be of better quality.

People forget that the newspaper industry is facing tough times and the advertising revenue just isn't there. To keep quality reporters on staff there needs to be a shift in the revenue model and that can only be achieved through online subs. The sad reality is that the best reporting isn't necessarily the most profitable reporting. A click bait article will almost always generate more ad revenue than an expose on child deaths due to malpractice at a hospital, for example. One article literally saves lives and the other wastes time, but which makes money? One requires top quality investigative journalism and reporting (which costs money) and the other requires a data entry bot to copy and paste nonsense into a template.

People complain about the fake news media but the reality is the ones that are charging a subscription can't really afford to be fake news. The ones that simply plaster their sites in programmatic ads can...and are.

People also forget that the 4th estate are largely responsible for moderating government behavior at every level. Fear of exposure is the only real deterrent and if that fear disappears with the extinction of high quality reporting then corruption and malpractice across the board will exponentially increase and the cost to us all will far, far outweigh the cost of a subscription that will go some way to curbing this.
 

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
34,560
11,766
Generally it will be of better quality.

People forget that the newspaper industry is facing tough times and the advertising revenue just isn't there. To keep quality reporters on staff there needs to be a shift in the revenue model and that can only be achieved through online subs. The sad reality is that the best reporting isn't necessarily the most profitable reporting. A click bait article will almost always generate more ad revenue than an expose on child deaths due to malpractice at a hospital, for example. One article literally saves lives and the other wastes time, but which makes money? One requires top quality investigative journalism and reporting (which costs money) and the other requires a data entry bot to copy and paste nonsense into a template.

People complain about the fake news media but the reality is the ones that are charging a subscription can't really afford to be fake news. The ones that simply plaster their sites in programmatic ads can...and are.

People also forget that the 4th estate are largely responsible for moderating government behavior at every level. Fear of exposure is the only real deterrent and if that fear disappears with the extinction of high quality reporting then corruption and malpractice across the board with exponentially increase and the cost to us all will far, far outweigh the cost of a subscription that will go some way to curbing this.
Yep.

The last paragraph in particular.

:hat
 

McGrain

Diamond Dog
Jul 6, 2012
7,419
3,505
Not really, no.

Here, the paywall papers are The Telegraph, which is highbrow conservatism and as biased as it gets, and The Times, which is less rabid than The Telegraph but still has an axe to grind and the FT which is interesting in that it takes an absolutist view on certain things but is not arguing about it. Free are The Guardian and The Independent. The Independent was really very special in print but it's gone off a cliff a bit now, which leaves The Guardian. Guardian is pretty good if you stay away from the Opinion which has AIDS.

Overall there appears to me to be no real difference if i'm honest.

There's a human being and an editor behind every news story you ever read, whether you are paying for it or not.
 
Reactions: Aussie_Al
Jun 4, 2013
289
42
Not really, no.

Here, the paywall papers are The Telegraph, which is highbrow conservatism and as biased as it gets, and The Times, which is less rabid than The Telegraph but still has an axe to grind and the FT which is interesting in that it takes an absolutist view on certain things but is not arguing about it. Free are The Guardian and The Independent. The Independent was really very special in print but it's gone off a cliff a bit now, which leaves The Guardian. Guardian is pretty good if you stay away from the Opinion which has AIDS.

Overall there appears to me to be no real difference if i'm honest.

There's a human being and an editor behind every news story you ever read, whether you are paying for it or not.
The Independent now has various articles closed off behind paywalls as part of their "Independent Minds" scheme. They also seem to be desperate for subscribers as they will not allow you to view the site with an adblock. Their adverts are also absolutely horrific, completely over the top, dominating the site, some articles are hidden behind polls/adverts and it just makes the site a chore to browse. They do have some decent journalists and contributors but also some absolute trash.

In today's day and age how do you find quality news and avoid echo chambers?
I've tried an app called Newsvoice, for every story they provide multiple sources which are labelled with "Right", "Left", "Center", "Tech" etc.

The comments section is absolute poison most of the time but the service itself provides plenty of decent sources.
 
Reactions: Aussie_Al

kf3

Jul 17, 2012
4,612
2,312
South London
i dont think cost makes much difference to quality.

i just try to follow people who are subjective within bias that i know about. jimmy dore's stuff is free and seems pretty un biased, he'll go after anti war and anti corrution if he can.
 

thehook13

‪#‎Pray4Khan‬
May 16, 2013
62,718
14,511
Unfortunately yes but the paywall model surely can't last long term either. Good journalism increasingly inaccessible to the masses, minimises the benefits of having good strong journos in the first place. If the poor rely more on cheap click bait publications and half arsed fake news blogs it's not in the public interest
 

Deebo

"Messkin" Deebo
Jun 5, 2013
14,761
10,644
Show dem balls bro
If you want real unbiased non-opinionated news about anything going on within the USA I've only seen sites like Al-Jazeera and those others to be credible. However I keep thinking in the back of my mind that I'm getting put on some sort of FBI watch-list every time I go to them so I don't do it too often.
 
Reactions: Aussie_Al
May 16, 2013
4,284
1,539
Big fan of the stuff vice has done in warzones
Ben Anderson in particular is a fantastic journalist
The good stuff is on HBO these days probably something thing i would subscribe for
 

thehook13

‪#‎Pray4Khan‬
May 16, 2013
62,718
14,511
I'm subscribed with my local newspaper. $16 a month for daily news. It's a shame they put local news behind a pay wall which should be common for all people.

Easy to spend $16 a month on physical newspapers, so I'm hardly getting ripped off.
 

ant-man

Opticians rob you blind.
Jun 11, 2014
9,564
8,175
Round and about
Can't beat a good old fashioned red top.
The Sun's the best of the red tops IMO. It's fun, with a good mix of trivia and news. Tells it like it is with no left wing nonsense. They were even giving it away free for a couple of weeks at my local shop not long ago. :good

As for online news it's still the BBC because they invest so much (taxpayers money) into their online operation, but you do have to put up with the left wing PC shit. There's no such thing as unbiased news though, that's just a myth.
 
Reactions: Aussie_Al