Dayroom7485@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Good reminder to pay for independent journalism.
The Guardian, Le Monde, El País, Tageszeitung and many others need subscribers to stay independent of oligarchs.
Also remember the journalists that need support the most are local papers and news stations. The big ones have plenty of donors, and while it’s worth the support, they are less likely to completely collapse than the news that is run in your city.
Go look for that independent source. They will report more news that actually affects you as well.
Paying for journalism simply promotes that those who don’t pay it don’t get it ie.: more paywalls, not less.
So everybody needs to stop paying for journalism so the journalists stop travelling, eating and having to pay their rent so journalism eventually becomes free for everybody?
If there is no money to pay for the work it takes, journalism will simply cease to exist.
Democracy isn’t possible without an independent press.
Epstein was persecuted because the frigging Miami Herold reported about his abuses in 2018. He would have continued raping and trafficking kids for who knows how long without that. In a world where the media is owned by Epstein, that won’t happen.
what democracy? every person in the leadership of america and most of the world were either friends with epstein or on his payroll.
They’re already mostly owned and working for the ultra-rich interests. There have been plenty of outlets over the years that had paying users, they’re mostly owned at this point. Those that aren’t are getting quite click-baity.
Capitalism is hard on News. Facism is worse.
I haven’t said that journalists have to work for free. Just that we don’t have to be the ones who are trickled out to feed them. I doesn’t have to be “poors vs workers” unlike what the media is telling you, ya know? A better system is possible.
Huh, I don’t get that argument. To me, it seems that citizens paying journalists is desirable. I’m genuinely curious, who else should pay them in your view?
It’s not our fault the media decided to switch to a subscription model while not providing a product worthy of paying a subscription, even before they downgrade it every year.
It’s a problem, but one of their own making.
Paying for journalism is ideal, but unfortunately makes it difficult to cite/link to a source the way Wikipedia needs as a way to ensure the information remains open and accessible.
Admittedly, I’m not familiar with these outlets enough to know if those paywalls are significant, but the problem with direct article links is that those links can change. Archival services (I suppose not archive[.]is) are important for ensuring those articles remain accessible in the format they were presented in.
I’ve come across a number of older Wikipedia articles about more minor or obscure events where links lead to local new outlet websites that no longer exist or were consumed by larger media outlets and as a result no longer provide an appropriate citation.
kepix@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
guardian is surviving by slowly becoming a tabloid. not sure if i would have paid for it anyway, and im not sure if this was preventable by paying for it in the first place.
vantablack@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 hours ago
yeah and they’re also transphobic af as a policy. don’t give them a damn cent
buzzfeed.com/…/guardian-staff-trans-rights-letter
can also find more stuff by just looking up “the guardian transphobia”
hector@lemmy.today 8 hours ago
I appreciate the guardian a lot more than I did before now that someone gave me a nytimes subscription, seeing how bad they are now. For the guardian’s faults, they do break some stories still, and somewhat comprehensively cover the news, perhaps better than the times, that is too busy trying to cover for Israel to even report honestly on epstein and apparently surrendered to the administration besides.