| ▲ | IChooseY0u 6 hours ago |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | tgv 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I guess you can't imagine a free, open democratic state with rule of law either. Because when broad, independent, quality journalism with a wide audience is gone, all you'll have to worry about is that poor cat in a tree in Ottawa. |
| |
|
| ▲ | speedgoose 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I pay for some good quality news and the quality and the lack of native advertising is worth it. |
| |
| ▲ | sigmoid10 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Unfortunately that is almost never enough. If your competition is populist media financed by state-level/billionaire agendas, it is impossible to compete in the long term. We would need a complete and general ban on political financing across all media to sustain such a market. |
|
|
| ▲ | mentalgear 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I paid for TheGuardian because if we don't support truly independent, objective, investigative journalism, who will? Certainly not Billionaires buying newspapers (e.g. Washington Post/Bezos, ...). |
| |
| ▲ | lyu07282 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > if we don't support truly independent, objective, investigative journalism, who will? Like Eric Schmidt, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros and countless other billionaires through their "charities"? https://theguardian.org/ Just because they are liberal and non-profit doesn't mean they are independent, that only appears this way if you only think in the narrow confines of the Overton Window between "conservative" and "liberal" of mainstream discourse. |
|
|
| ▲ | alt227 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Then how should the journalists that write about it get paid?
I for one would rather pay for news than have to watch ad content for it instead. |
| |
| ▲ | clickety_clack 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | It’s not so much about having to watch ads, it’s the incentive alignment towards what’s good for advertisers over what’s good for readers. |
|