Putting important, exclusive reporting behind a paywall ensures no one that needs to see it will read it. Fox News is trash, but it is free, which do you think Joe Everyman will read today? We all want to support them, but leave the paywall for op-eds, extras, etc. if you plan to inform the public.
I am not attempting to inform the public, and if I were, that article would be published for free. I could put up ads, take donations, get paid for other non-critical articles, etc. Paywalling useful info just allows another free source to reinterpret you later, possibly misconstruing your report.
I understand you.
The advertising-dependent business model by definition only works for business, the Chamber of Commerce, etc.
Today the US Fourth Estate needs more than profiteering news outlets.
If you truly cannot support individual independents, send a few $$$ to the @archive.org & read away.
Cosign. Local reporters' pay has been plummeting or simply evaporating with local news since the early 1990s.
Social media platforms' business model never received a second's scrutiny in Congress. While SM may not have actually murdered local news, it absolutely starved it into submission.
Comments
I figure there's some price discrimination weirdness going on there, but whatever.
✅ Liked
✅ Subscribed
Do you also work for free?
You too could join the right wing money train or you can support honest journalism
….Why don’t you do that for free?
The advertising-dependent business model by definition only works for business, the Chamber of Commerce, etc.
Today the US Fourth Estate needs more than profiteering news outlets.
If you truly cannot support individual independents, send a few $$$ to the @archive.org & read away.
Social media platforms' business model never received a second's scrutiny in Congress. While SM may not have actually murdered local news, it absolutely starved it into submission.
They will continue on in ignorance soaking up state propaganda.
You don't see the problem here?