Free Press / News retail price increasing to $1

[Wheels]

^^^ Didn't get the memo on 'No Politics' eh?

Is it really about no politics or is it just about not fitting your narrative? You didn’t say boo to the poster he was responding too did you.

[Zacha341]

Ascribing thoughts and ideas as 'politics' or 'you're being political' happens sometimes when the person wants to wall off your comment or concern. Culture, policy and politics are integrated. Local and otherwise.

Anyway, beyond the local papers, I subscribe to the NYTimes, in part just to see what their perspective and slant is. They're too 'big' to not monitor as for many their 'reporting' is holy-writ -- and I want to trace the temperature of the culture, etc. Attempting to avoid the 'echo' chamber of following that which always agrees with my views/ values I check varied news sources.

The bigger, driving issue with newsprint in general is that long gone are the thick-ad-section days of advertisers driving profit. Content is the money-driver to maintain paying subscribers for the bottom line! This is why you find such fixed-orthodoxy [withstanding facts or changing information] to engender the given audience. It's a thin profit margin. Who'd dare dissent?

And we thought Pravda was controlling? And costly [on so many levels].

[CassTechGrad]

Quotes and comments related to an opinion column written by Jim Rutenberg of The New York Times on Aug. 8 2016: “Trump is testing the norms of objectivity in journalism.”

[Zacha341]

Young people for Limbaugh?! They must be keeping that on the serious down-low! Factor in also that throne of highest culture and knowledge: Twitter. Followed with a helping of CNN and Tic Tok, where all serious news holds-up!

Don't forget Dailymail.UK!! Sure it's a tabloid-rag, but even sometimes they stumble into actual news. Especially per their click-bait photos! Hah!!

Sad...say goodbye to one of the two, probably the News. Ultimately, say goodbye to print journalism as we know it.
Unfortunately, most people...especially young people...don't read the daily paper anymore...and too many get their news from hucksters like Limbaugh, Hannity and the Drudge report. Sad.

[jcole]

Yeah, but the quote you were replying to was from 2009 when people had heard of Limbaugh.

Young people for Limbaugh?! They must be keeping that on the serious down-low! Factor in also that throne of highest culture and knowledge: Twitter. Followed with a helping of CNN and Tic Tok, where all serious news holds-up!

Don't forget Dailymail.UK!! Sure it's a tabloid-rag, but even sometimes they stumble into actual news. Especially per their click-bait photos! Hah!!

[Henry Whalley]

Quotes and comments related to an opinion column written by Jim Rutenberg of The New York Times on Aug. 8 2016: “Trump is testing the norms of objectivity in journalism.”

Slouching Toward Post-Journalism | City Journal [[city-journal.org)

I particularly like this quote:

"Traditional newspapers never sold news; they sold an audience to advertisers... The old media had needed happy customers. The goal of post-journalism... is to “produce angry citizens.”"

[Zacha341]

Duly noted. Yikes! I've lost my edge perhaps from being away doing other things -- not posting much [did not notice the date]..........

Yeah, but the quote you were replying to was from 2009 when people had heard of Limbaugh.

[Lowell]

The Special Offer of $39 a year for the digital Free Press, that pulled this thread out of the archives graveyard, is actually a price hike. I have been subscribed to it for a few years at $29 a year. To me its a great deal at either price and I will continue to subscribe. Contrast that The NY Times that cost me $17 a month, but I'm stuck on it because I have five year string of solving its crossword puzzles.

I particularly like that I can read the Free Press online in traditional newspaper format as seen in this screen snap.

[jcole]

I particularly like that I can read the Free Press online in traditional newspaper format as seen in this screen snap.

[Satiricalivory]

You haven't read the New York Times much, have you?

I've read plenty New York Trash.

Don't know much about journalism, claim you do.

I know big conglomerate news like NYT are nothing but glorified propaganda outlets for neoliberalism today with profit motives. If you wanna trust some smarmy rich idiots living in ivory towers in Manhattan who believe the new economy will solve all our problems over local news then go for it. There is no real journalism happening at NYT.

Was it you, or you under your other moniker who advocated unvaccinated younguns get back to partying like it's 1999 'cause you heard the coronavirus doesn't affect you, you think it's on the old folks, the chemo patients, the immunocompromised, etc. to hide away on old folks island?
Easy to get you mixed up; same voice, such a crass.

I don't know what you're talking about but I have never been anti-vax, I've even defended the lock-downs. So you're wrong again.

[Zacha341]

Vax-xing here, country-wide has become so politicized. If you do you're on the correct side. If you didn't you're MAGA! 2D low-resolution narrative afoot; again demonstrating an attempt to 'neatly' assign, group and 'other' people. When in fact there are many detailed factors at hand.

I do subscribe to the NYT. For certain they are very biased and push forth some misinformation. They are not alone in this - Yes, I KNOW that.

But they're one of the giants - some absorbing their news w/o question. I retain my sub to know what I need to investigate 'further' beyond their take. And often they overplay their hand! So assured are they of their duty and directives to be 'agents of change' they DO get a bit heady.

[bust]

I have never been anti-vax, I've even defended the lock-downs. So you're wrong again.

Apologies for this part, only. Your way with words is indistinguishable.
I still doubt you've ever read much from the NY Times.

[bust]

The Special Offer of $39 a year for the digital Free Press, that pulled this thread out of the archives graveyard, is actually a price hike. I have been subscribed to it for a few years at $29 a year.

Still a great price, I say.

Quality journalism is essential to democracy-- but it's absurd to expect it for free, for everyone to be able to afford a subscription price that reflects its true value, or for it to be reliably high quality and unbiased if advertising is its main source of revenue.

I have only the most vague and incomplete ideas how to solve the problem, but more local ownership is probably part of it, and better regulation of the forces undermining news reporting.

Sure hope they do. Until then I'm glad to pay $39, even for the shadow of its former self.