More and more news providers want you to pay up front

Me neither.

Journalists should work for free. Why should writers and reporters make a living anyway.

I don't know why we need professional journalists anymore. Now we can all just write our own news. Who needs Bob Woodward or Christiane Amanpour when we have Sally on Facebook.

Isn't that why Twitter was invented? (and Twitter is still free.)

Well, the internet has essentially done in the print media. Less physical newspapers and magazines leads to less advertisers, which of course means less actual jobs. To maintain the media source of your choice, requesting payment from online readers is their only real option.

I say "request" ; because, in some cases, the paywall can be worked around. Not so much for the sites which block completely; but, for The New York Times, The New York Daily News, and several other publications where there's an article limit, clearing out your cookies, will do the trick. I've done this for years now.

And yet you still consume their products.

Chalk another one up for the anti-media right.

I pay for NPR. But that is voluntary. They provide me with a service that is worth at least what I pay them. (Heck, "Wait Wait" alone is worth what I give them).

If they put it on my social media to be read, or send me dozens of links, you bet I click on it, if the topic interests me. Anyway, how many news sites are there and how much can a person pay? All those subscriptions are beyond my means to pay for.

If you mean to be insulting by referring to me as anti media right you are way off base.

He makes a fair point, but I, and probably you follow one link to a site and never revisit. I'm not paying for one article. Also, I never, ever use a credit card for any kind of subscription. A number of years ago, they all decided that as a "customer service" they would use your number to renew the subscription - all for your convenience. If they can't accept a check, they are history.

Yes. And some sites, such as Drudgeretort give you a list of headline blurbs without naming the source. So you click one and they give you a bunch of sh-t.

Most news providers are legit. If you know one is ****, why do you bother with it? Your sweeping condemnation is a rightist talking point.

Well, if you give me a link that seems relevant, I might follow it blindly. They demand a subscription and I will reevaluate. At least NYT lets you see enough articles to make an informed decision.

I'm not going to argue with you.

This just to hand.



You've got me wondering now how much I would pay for

https://able2know.org/

Carlisle, bring me my last will and testament and the coloured pencils.

The rightists condemn The NYT first and foremost.

Not I. The Washington Post and New York times were both good papers, with opposing viewpoints. Now, that guy (Zukerman?) or something bought out the WP. NYT is still a good paper. We don't share viewpoints. No problem. Even if it were a problem, they still give you a few free articles instead of asking us to buy a pig in a poke.

I don't know where he gets his information. The NY Times is a rightist paper, these days, as are most news organizations from America, because right leaning owners make it so. The only reason FOX criticises them is for not being as much to the right as they and for supporting centrist Democrats.

Maybe I should take another look.