I agree with the main points of this post, yet I side with many who have lost faith (and trust) in legacy media.
They won't "do better", they won't abandon absurdly modulated language to describe fascism.
There are fine independent journalists, excellent Substacks, and publications such as The Guardian, Philadelphia Inquirer, ProPublica, Tennessee Holler, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, etc who called out the dangers in real time.
Rewarding legacy media for failing in their most basic responsibility as a bulwark of democracy serves no purpose.
I've become very pro-Guardian for daily news intake because they don't mess around with both-sidesism and their stories are generally short and to the point. I'm all for long-form journalism, but when you just want a daily perusal of the news, the NYT and WaPo (organizations I'm sick of anyway) tend to be more long-winded than necessary. They also both feature some both-sides columnists that annoy me to pieces. The New Yorker (which is sadly quite expensive) also has never wavered in its commitment to the truth, probably because they have such excellent fact checkers. It's terrifying how few people actually know anything real about the world, especially when so much information is available for free. The Guardian, AP, NPR and Reuters don't have paywalls, people. No excuses for ignorance.
The Guardian, AP, and NPR have no paywalls because they are nonprofits. Their business model relies on charitable donations. Not every news organization can do that.
I wasn't being critical of paywalls. I absoutely get that, as I was a newspaper journalist myself and realize that it's an expensive enterprise and the traditional ways of making money have all but disappeared. I'm happy to pay for news. I was pointing out there are places people can go for fairly straightforward news, so not being able to pay for a subscription is not a valid reason for being uninformed.
I agree with the main points of this post, yet I side with many who have lost faith (and trust) in legacy media.
They won't "do better", they won't abandon absurdly modulated language to describe fascism.
There are fine independent journalists, excellent Substacks, and publications such as The Guardian, Philadelphia Inquirer, ProPublica, Tennessee Holler, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, etc who called out the dangers in real time.
Rewarding legacy media for failing in their most basic responsibility as a bulwark of democracy serves no purpose.
I've become very pro-Guardian for daily news intake because they don't mess around with both-sidesism and their stories are generally short and to the point. I'm all for long-form journalism, but when you just want a daily perusal of the news, the NYT and WaPo (organizations I'm sick of anyway) tend to be more long-winded than necessary. They also both feature some both-sides columnists that annoy me to pieces. The New Yorker (which is sadly quite expensive) also has never wavered in its commitment to the truth, probably because they have such excellent fact checkers. It's terrifying how few people actually know anything real about the world, especially when so much information is available for free. The Guardian, AP, NPR and Reuters don't have paywalls, people. No excuses for ignorance.
The Guardian, AP, and NPR have no paywalls because they are nonprofits. Their business model relies on charitable donations. Not every news organization can do that.
I wasn't being critical of paywalls. I absoutely get that, as I was a newspaper journalist myself and realize that it's an expensive enterprise and the traditional ways of making money have all but disappeared. I'm happy to pay for news. I was pointing out there are places people can go for fairly straightforward news, so not being able to pay for a subscription is not a valid reason for being uninformed.
Ah. I apologize, then.