YSK: Even though it isn't a foolproof criterion, the fact that a claimed "news" source is offered "completely free (as in free beer)" may suggest that it is poor quality
YSK: Even though it isn't a foolproof criterion, the fact that a claimed "news" source is offered "completely free (as in free beer)" may suggest that it is poor quality
Why YSK: good journalism has a lot of costs (and not one-time-only), in time if not in money, so if any "news" source isn't at least trying to get paid somehow*, then it indicates that the supply at zero price exceeds the demand (it is a "free good"), which means one of two things:
Edit: After a lot of discussion and some more thought on my part, I am no longer sure that a single binary choice captures all the possibilities here. The concept of a "free good" is a standard one in economics, with essentially the definition I gave above, and it is still true that most journalism comes with significant costs (and not just in money). So, if there is no effort being made to recover that cost (e.g. by asking for charitable donations, or some other significant material contributions like volunteer work), then I don't see how that "journalism" can be legitimate.
The point I was trying to make is that, e.g., internet sites that claim to offer vast amounts of easy, "quality" information (and it is questionable what that even means), on a regular, ongoing basis, but ask absolutely nothing from anyone in return, are likely some kind of scam. Because, if that were actually true, then they would have no way of actually supporting themselves on a long-term basis. Some people don't care about long-term sustainability, of course, but they don't tend to stay around for very long.
Original text follows.
-
a lot of people like and use it but the publisher, or someone backing them, is still paying the substantial costs associated with investigating/researching, editing, and hosting it (and are arguably being quite charitable), or
-
not many people find it useful or access it often, but it is still being offered/promoted by someone who has some other motive (not necessarily nefarious, but also not all that charitable).
If the latter, but they still publish timely coverage of "newsworthy" events, which would otherwise make a lot more people want to read it, then they are likely may be (edited) "tabloid"/"propaganda"/"yellow journalism"/"clickbait"/"listicle"/whatever term people are using today for "not a very credible news source".
* Even if that's through asking for charitable donations, though that unfortunately is often not very successful despite the fact that, one might argue, when you benefit and have the financial means to pay but don't, then that is unethical.
Also, note that the existence of barriers to unfettered use can be considered a kind of "price" (from the "buyer's" perspective at least), which is both annoying and can serve to limit the "quantity demanded", making it easier to keep the "quantity supplied" high enough to meet the demand.
You're viewing a single thread.
The idea that paid is better than free is just a joke of a position and I think you can quite easily deconstruct it yourself. Pick some free news source that's broadly inoffensive, like the free episodes of some shitty podcast or something. However lacking you and I might find it, are we really going to say that it's worse than whatever Exclusive Content can be raked up from paying subscriptions to Crowder or Molyneux or Alex Jones or some other reactionary cultist? Are we really saying that the paid version of Breitbart is a much better source than some lib shithead's Twitter feed? Do you even know what yellow journalism is or that tabloids sell by subscription?
Get away for a second from words like "quality" that are epistemically messy and consider the market incentives: What any subscription service wants is for people to subscribe and then stay subscribed. This is what they invest their money in and anything else is either wholly secondary or based on a different revenue stream (like ad revenue, sponsorship, or grants).
Does this forbid them from putting out "high-quality" news? No, not necessarily, but it seems that the "quality" of the news is secondary to whatever keeps the subscription paid month to month. Alex Jones displays an excellent example of one of the most salient investments for these businesses: Fostering dependency. Through his conspiracism, he promotes the idea that listening to his program and only his program allows the viewer to be largely free of whatever "satanic vampire brainwashing" he warns them about. Andrew Tate does the same thing, he just calls it the "Matrix". However, this is only one approach, and there are many other ways to get your audience to believe that yours is either the only service or one of a narrow range of services worth having, and all the self-flattering that goes on in liberal journalism should tip you off that the neoliberal press behaves almost like a guild, hostile to independent journalists and relatively friendly to those who have the same agenda or the same corporate masters. One can look at any of those bullshit "bias" charts and see how they equate centrism with being "free of bias," which is simply absurd on its face.
Since they are optimizing for subscription and retention, one of their biggest threats is damage to their reputation. If a paper is operating out of the US and mostly to US customers, this has an effect that people don't address often enough: The most dangerous thing to these papers short of the government or rioters shutting down their offices are other major powers in US-consumed media attacking them in a way that discredits them to their own target demographic. Bigger newspapers tend to be very siloed in terms of their audiences, so it's not a huge deal if Fox attacks the NYT or CNN attacks the Sun -- usually -- but by its very nature this means there is only a very limited extent to which they can oppose the US government before the government becomes serious about retaliating, and thereby enlists all of the other major media outlets in retaliating. Trump flirted with this but never fully committed because the attacks on him specifically were literally part of his appeal to his own base, and these attacks never questioned the broader structures of power represented by the WH itself or the two-party system.
Oh yeah, and there's the adjacent matter of "Access Journalism." You know what makes the news a lot? Big and powerful institutions. If you want to do interviews with people who are either being reported on by other outlets or have information pertinent to a story being reported by other outlets, you better have a track record of being friendly in your coverage, or you'll be denied the interview!
Overwhelmingly, being a big media company making its money on subscriptions does create a bias, not towards "higher" or "lower" quality, but towards being friendly to the structures of power that the company is based in and reporting on!
You make a lot of points here, and I agree with some of them but not all, so I'm going to break it down and give my opinion (when I have one), skipping over anything that I don't think is that essential. It will make for a long read, so most people will probably want to skip this response.
The idea that paid is better than free is just a joke of a position and I think you can quite easily deconstruct it yourself.
I do not think that "paid is [necessarily] better than free", paid "journalism" can be bad too --- atrocious, even. But I do think that all news (aside from one-off coincidences of "being in the right place at the right time") ultimately have costs associated with them, and if they are going to be offered as free goods, that is going to attract both very charitable organizations and those who have motives that are less than charitable. The latter can include both "far left" and "far right" sources just as much as it can "enlightened centrists", and I do not think there is anything to be gained by pretending that the issue of funding (and its sources) can just be ignored.
Pick some free news source that’s broadly inoffensive [...] are we really going to say that it’s worse than whatever Exclusive Content can be raked up from paying subscriptions to Crowder or Molyneux or Alex Jones or some other reactionary cultist?
No. In fact, the free news source is likely far better, simply because most news sources are better than that, whether paid or not. I don't really know anything about Molyneux, and I don't listen to Crowder or Alex Jones either, but from what I've heard about them, they are some of the worst sources one could rely on. And again, I am not trying to say that paid = better.
Are we really saying that the paid version of Breitbart is a much better source than some lib shithead’s Twitter feed?
Breitbart is another source I strongly dislike. It's hard to compare them to a hypothetical "lib shithead", especially on Twitter, since I have never engaged much with Twitter --- and do not want to, especially now, with Musk in charge --- but I will grant that some liberal (in the sense of someone who thinks government should "stay out of people's business", usually "left wing" on some social issues and "right wing" on a lot of economic issues; not the sense of someone who is generally "left of [the American] center") could be much better than Breitbart.
There are even some "liberals" in this sense that I often find myself agreeing with, though certainly not always --- there are a lot of ways in which our lives can be and have been made shittier by doing away with regulations --- and so I still try to take what they say with a heavy dose of salt.
Do you even know what yellow journalism is or that tabloids sell by subscription?
I will not claim to be even close to the most knowledgeable person in the world on yellow journalism, but I am aware that there is a long history of newspapers that were sold for money and used their position to manipulate public opinion, often on things they had a heavy financial interest in. Again, "paid" does not imply "good", though "not paid" does raise the question to me of "how and why are they doing their work?"
Most of my experience with tabloids comes from the days when they were usually sold as cheap physical magazines in supermarkets, and full of both wild speculation and insane conspiracy theories, though IIRC, even then they were trying like hell to get people to subscribe as you say.
Get away for a second from words like “quality” that are epistemically messy and consider the market incentives: What any subscription service wants is for people to subscribe and then stay subscribed.
Fair. It can indeed be messy to define just what we mean by "knowing the quality of something", but whatever traits we select for will end up being the traits that are most represented in the population, it's the same reason politicians care more about getting in office/power and staying there than they do about anything else. Whether that's done through votes, bribes, or complimenting other powerful political leaders.
This is what they invest their money in and anything else is either wholly secondary or based on a different revenue stream (like ad revenue, sponsorship, or grants).
While it's undeniably true that subscription-based services spend a lot of resources on keeping people subscribed, they will have a very hard time accomplishing that goal without providing what their customers want in exchange for that. That doesn't guarantee even slightly that what their customers want will be accurate information, as you demonstrated amply with your Alex Jones, Crowder, and Breitbart examples.
But if they are going to be around regardless of what anyone else wants, then they are both much freer to provide accurate information and much freer to completely ignore what would, in a more personal setting, be regarded as important social cues that they are being unhelpful. You can't "vote with your feet" if they tie you down and chop off your legs!
Alex Jones displays an excellent example of one of the most salient investments for these businesses: Fostering dependency. Through his conspiracism, he promotes the idea that listening to his program and only his program allows the viewer to be largely free of whatever “satanic vampire brainwashing” he warns them about.
Like I said, I don't listen to Alex Jones, but that sounds like the kind of things I've heard he says. And yes, trying to make people feel like they can only get the truth from the very person or group currently telling them about all the evils of the world is a pretty shitty (and unfortunately common) manipulation tactic.
However, this is only one approach, and there are many other ways to get your audience to believe that yours is either the only service or one of a narrow range of services worth having, and all the self-flattering that goes on in liberal journalism should tip you off that the neoliberal press behaves almost like a guild, hostile to independent journalists and relatively friendly to those who have the same agenda or the same corporate masters. One can look at any of those bullshit “bias” charts and see how they equate centrism with being “free of bias,” which is simply absurd on its face.
Sure, but a lot of manipulative people of all walks of life use those tactics, frankly because they often work. Another common tactic is to say "you need to be open minded" and "listen to all viewpoints", but then when confronted with a viewpoint that differs significantly from theirs, they start lobbing insults and shaming people for disagreeing. Unfortunately, I often see that behavior from people who describe themselves as "leftists", but who a lot of other self-described "leftists" would probably insult and dismiss themselves as "tankies".
There's more to your argument that I haven't yet addressed, but I am getting tired and I've already written a big wall of text and commented on almost every comment I saw, so I'm gonna stop for now. I know it's not all about what I think, after all.
I do not think there is anything to be gained by pretending that the issue of funding (and its sources) can just be ignored.
I propose no such thing! Quite to the contrary, what I am saying is that you are not scrutinizing the question enough. Specifically, the biases that all corporate media has towards promoting the idea of the near-monopoly on "legitimate journalism" held by corporate media and friendly state media, as well as promoting the institutional powers and corporate backers upon which they ground their business. I likewise think people shouldn't rush to accept state-funded media as being "independent" when they have largely demonstrated a deep-seated bias towards promoting the interests of their state sponsors. This is not a coincidence!
People that are invested in getting stories that are against the interests of the country they are in must first recognize that it's an uphill battle more complicated than the consumer lifestyle bullshit offered by the sources that -- thanks to their capital giving them immense brand awareness -- make themselves "easy to come by".
While it’s undeniably true that subscription-based services spend a lot of resources on keeping people subscribed, they will have a very hard time accomplishing that goal without providing what their customers want in exchange for that. That doesn’t guarantee even slightly that what their customers want will be accurate information, as you demonstrated amply with your Alex Jones, Crowder, and Breitbart examples.
Tell me, does anyone who follows a news source not profess that they want "accurate information"? From CNN to Epoch Times to Breitbart to Yahoo News (funny how underrepresented the left is in major western news sources, by the way), does anyone say "Oh, I don't care if it is accurate." No, of course not! And yet, it should go without saying that people clearly have a bit more going on than that for a source like Breitbart to have success. Of course, once we establish some people are acting against their professed desire for accuracy and are happily being fed bullshit, this also brings oneself into question.
So if it's not merely what they say they want, what do people actually want?
Let me take a slight detour: What is ideology? A set of beliefs regarding both values and empirical facts, I think everyone can agree on that. What is the basis for the adoption of ideology? This is much more contentious, but I think the most foundational element of this has only one good answer: Ideology is a survival strategy.
Ideology is a huge topic, theoretically infinitely huge, between the immense weight of the historical record, the epistemically infinite possibilities for the future, and the stipulatively infinite number of different values someone can choose, and the endless ways these can relate to each other in various forms of inference. People don't have time for that, and yet in their desire for meaning and connection (along with being directly instructed to) there is pressure from an early age to develop an ideology, so they use what they virtually always do: heuristics, preconceptions in the form of perceived correlations generalized so as to be all-encompassing to their subject matter. This makes it much easier to develop at least a rough ideological framework, but it does not help determine which simplified ideological tenets they ascribe to. This, again, can be explained as a survival strategy: People become enculturated to groups that they are attracted to, and they fall into such groups for material reasons, whether perceived opportunity for gain, promise of security, or being spurned by other groups, all with an immense bias towards locality.
In short, ideology is functionally a way to relate to society on the basis of what is the most profitable or convenient. Capital-T "Truth" is only relevant insofar as it directly impacts one's own living conditions, and even then it might take up an antagonistic role (see antivaxxers).
So, returning to the original topic of media consumption, I would like to advance the thesis that people want media that comports with their ideology, which means media that they find convenient or profitable for navigating their day-to-day lives. Whether the media advances ideas that are capital-T "True" is not relevant if it is functionally very distant from someone's life in either geography, chronology, or social grouping.
But if they are going to be around regardless of what anyone else wants, then they are both much freer to provide accurate information and much freer to completely ignore what would, in a more personal setting, be regarded as important social cues that they are being unhelpful. You can’t “vote with your feet” if they tie you down and chop off your legs!
I don't follow the second part, but I think I've demonstrated that the media being "free" to provide accurate information doesn't mean very much to the information that they will provide. They can do great research, but their vested interest is mainly what amounts to pandering to the ideology of their target demographics.
Sure, but a lot of manipulative people of all walks of life use those tactics, frankly because they often work. Another common tactic is to say “you need to be open minded” and “listen to all viewpoints”, but then when confronted with a viewpoint that differs significantly from theirs, they start lobbing insults and shaming people for disagreeing. Unfortunately, I often see that behavior from people who describe themselves as “leftists”, but who a lot of other self-described “leftists” would probably insult and dismiss themselves as “tankies”.
I don't see how this is relevant other than finding a way to bring Tankie Discoursetm into this, which I think we can really do without for the time being unless you'd like to use it to construct a more relevant argument.
I look forward to what else you have to say.
Complete aside, Citations Needed is a cool podcast that is free