Canadian Money Forum banner

1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
338 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I still haven’t been able to bring myself to paying for access to news sites.....Toronto Star, Globe and Mail etc.......have you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,839 Posts
I still haven’t been able to bring myself to paying for access to news sites.....Toronto Star, Globe and Mail etc.......have you?

of course i've bought online subscriptions, the question is Why haven't you?

people used to buy newspapers. An online subscr is no different. All the massive costs of running a full-spectrum news medium like the globe & mail are now being expensed onto the web edition. Advertising does not cover those costs. Never did cover all the costs for print media either.

one can shop quality news sites like the globe e-editon & the NY times e-edition judiciously. Both have frequent big promotions, i'm sure so do other quality media. Cost goes down to pennies per day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,338 Posts
It would depends on the quality (and the political neutrality) of the publication. I pay-subscribe to National Post (news) but not the others. Now I'm wondering why Twitter doesn't charge its users when it's so much directed to all news subscriptions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,128 Posts
No I don't. I see it as being up to the owners of ANY website to determine how they are going to make it pay. Look at any website you use for anything and all the advertising found on the pages. Look at their cookie policies and how they collect information from you that they then sell on, etc.

If the print media are going to successfully transition to online media then they need to learn how to do so successfully. Asking you to pay is just ONE possible way. Other online businesses find other ways, why can't the news media?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,839 Posts
No I don't. I see it as being up to the owners of ANY website to determine how they are going to make it pay. Look at any website you use for anything and all the advertising found on the pages. Look at their cookie policies and how they collect information from you that they then sell on, etc.

If the print media are going to successfully transition to online media then they need to learn how to do so successfully. Asking you to pay is just ONE possible way. Other online businesses find other ways, why can't the news media?

it boils down to a choice between garbage & lies on freebie social media vs accurate professional journalism on recognized media websites

in the old days it was a choice between garbage in freebie tabloids vs accurate professional journalism
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,885 Posts
I still haven’t been able to bring myself to paying for access to news sites.....Toronto Star, Globe and Mail etc.......have you?
Same here. Actual news is available in many places free. CBC for example in Canada. CNN/Fox/Etc in USA. It's the additional editorial or other content that they want you to pay for. I do without, or read it on other sites where it sometimes is reposted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,646 Posts
It would depends on the quality (and the political neutrality) of the publication. I pay-subscribe to National Post (news) but not the others. Now I'm wondering why Twitter doesn't charge its users when it's so much directed to all news subscriptions.
Very little news is politically neutral.
For neutral news I read Edgar and sedar filings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,588 Posts
What is this accurate professional journalism of which you speak, and where does one find it? Are you suggesting there is a source of news somewhere that does not consist of click bait, bias and propaganda, and has no political agenda?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,839 Posts
Same here. Actual news is available in many places free. CBC for example in Canada. CNN/Fox/Etc in USA. It's the additional editorial or other content that they want you to pay for. I do without, or read it on other sites where it sometimes is reposted.

i don't agree that subscription content consists of nothing more than "editorial or other content."

in a first-rate media such as the globe or the NY times, accurate & detailed hard news from skilled reporters working directly in the field usually lies behind the paywall. This is not "editorial" or opinion content, it's breaking hard news.

what i see, in the globe & mail at least, is that opinion columns are free whereas hard news from the pens of experienced scribes like eric reguly is often published behind the paywall.

me i find a mix of paid subscription & free sites is good. I never have more than 1 paid subscr at a time & i tend to circulate among 2 or 3 media, sometimes with a lapse of paid subscr so during those periods i also have nothing except freebie sites.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,646 Posts
What is this accurate professional journalism of which you speak, and where does one find it? Are you suggesting there is a source of news somewhere that does not consist of click bait, bias and propaganda, and has no political agenda?
Just as an example, look at the Coronavirus and use of CFR, by almost everyone.

The stat is correct, it is valid.
However it is misleading, so its either
1. Ignorance /incompetence.
2. Pushing some agenda.

Either case it's not professional, and almost everyone is doing it.

That's why I don't trust the media, or politicians, etc etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,338 Posts
Very little news is politically neutral.
For neutral news I read Edgar and sedar filings.
... yes, that help and those are free. Let me clarify my post - I pay-subscribe to the National Post "news" publication mostly for the Financial Post section. And mostly read news from the rest of the paper/publication that is from my POV as being "neutral". Of course, no "news' is politically neutral. All are inherently biased.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,825 Posts
Twitter is the best place to get the news directly from those involved or those witnessing the events in real time.

There is a lot of garbage content on all social media, including Twitter.....but the Twitter user can link to only those people that they trust.

For example.......I link to some intelligence people (retired mostly) who watch and report from various corners of the world. Their content has proven to be very reliable.

I link to experts on the coronavirus, and they link to other experts, who link to other experts..........and you get the best information available in real time.

CNN, CBC and networks are hours and sometimes days behind the news. They often get their news from Twitter and then take the time to verify it through their own sources.

Newspapers are days behind on the breaking news and are best for editorial and in-depth stories.

If people curate their social media, it can be a good provider of real time information, but you have to spend the time to discover and link to the best sources.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,646 Posts
If people curate their social media, it can be a good provider of real time information, but you have to spend the time to discover and link to the best sources.
Imo the best news outlets link directly to the primary source.
As a skeptic, I become distrustful when they don't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,825 Posts
That is what Twitter does.

A person on an airplane with a coronvirus victim tweets out about it, and the world knows instantly.

Missiles fly in Iran and it is instantly on Twitter for the world to see.......video included (that was later used by all media sources)

You just have to curate your own feeds to avoid all the idiots.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,825 Posts
The most famous Twitter user is Trump. He tweets something at 3:00 a.m. and it posts instantly.

The next day CNN may or may not comment on his tweets during the night. News media has limited time to report all the stories. The editors decide what is news.

Twitter posts immediately and nobody is filtering it. People "trend" the news for others. Crappy news doesn't get trended much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,885 Posts
Looks like many of above posters spend their days gazing into small screens. Do they really need instant news? Once a day is enough for me. Usually from radio.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
938 Posts
That is what Twitter does.
Imagine if any reliable news media looked at the comments below a factual, verifiable story and retracted it because many of the comments were negative. How many tweets ( stupid word ) have been withdrawn by their author because they didn't get the reaction they expected. If what was written is true, then leave it up!

Twitter is unreliable at best. It's a popularity contest. It's a "look at me everybody, see what I did".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
938 Posts
Oops, can't edit previous post, so as for paying for news, I pay for the news package with my TV subscription. I'll watch some while having my morning coffee just to see what new crisis is unfolding today.

I like BBC news best for a world view, but have also watch MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News (ugh) from time to time. In addition there's CBC and CTV 24hr news channels for the Canadian pov.

Stories on the pay-walled news websites, if important enough, will be all over other free sites, radio, and TV, so no, I wouldn't subscribe to any.
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top