I quit

[odeon]

But you didn't say that, not exactly.  So, for the moment,  i'm still clinging to my estwhile impression that you're essentially left wing. Apologies if I got you wrong.

I'm not sue what that's got to do with anything. This is about newspapers moving online and charging for their content. Politics is down the hall, second door to the right.

Come now, you can't seriously seperate journalism from politics? Not unless you're only reading the Sunday issues. Any question about journalism is essentially a political question, with at least two sides to it.

I'm not making any sweeping assumptions, just questioning the wisdom (from a left wing perspective, that is.  Obviously, i don't expect the right wing to care) of letting market forces prove the decisive factor as to whether a news source survives or not, and who will have acess to it? There has to be a better way forward

NT and WP are both businesses and have to make money in order to support their businesses, pay their employees and freelancers, etc. Before there was an internet, no-one questioned their right to charge money for the daily printed copy. Why would today be any different?

Nobody's questioning their need to make money, nor their right to do so.  That's just how you chose to  (mis) read my comments.

Before we had the internet, we had better public services and hence better access, as i detailed in previous posts. Somehow, despite the fact that  printed copies cost a shedload more (in raw materials, printing costs and distribution) than digital issues, news agencies were not ruined by the fact that the lower classes and others could quite easily access their material for free. 

Now that we have the internet, it's not only highly ironic, but pretty damned incredible if we can't find a way to supply the necessary revenue without denying access to the (increasingly impiverished ) lower classes. And if some internet nobody like Walkie isn't supplying you with a detailed, foolproof, appropriate  business model on demand,  that really doesn't shake the validility of that observation.

If the left-wing perspective is to not allow them to do that, I'm against it. As for the better way forward, I'm all ears. But please make an actual practical suggestion instead of repeating wishful thinking - which, in my mind, is as sweeping as they come, the essence of it being "there has to be a better way".

The left wing perspective, as I understand it, is to care about free education for the massess, and to do everything possible to support it.  You were not exactly  talking like you cared."' As for the better way forward, I'm all ears." sounds a whole  lot more promsing, but as for your  other point, i think I already answered that , above

You're opining, not arguing. You want there to be a better way but show precious little insight into how that would actually work.

A couple of points:

Before we had the internet, we had better public services and hence better access, as i detailed in previous posts.

You haven't detailed anything, Walkie, you've simply run variations of the same-old. What makes you think you had better access before the internet? Do you have any actual quantitative proof? A study, perhaps? Anything?

Do you realise - at all - why today's age is often labelled "the information age"? Do you dare to hazard a guess? Today, you have access to vast amounts of information, not for free but for a pittance. Yet you complain about NYT and WP charging for their services?

The libraries still exist. Here at least, you can still read papers from all over the globe for free. They're often yesterday's papers but that's fine - I remember that in the 80s while at uni, our library would be a couple of days late. Physical transport is such an inconvenience.

Did you know that the vast majority of photos were taken during the last year? And it's going to be the same again next year, and before long, that majority will have been taken during the last few months.

Now imagine how much *text* that has been produced during that same period of time.

Somehow, despite the fact that  printed copies cost a shedload more (in raw materials, printing costs and distribution) than digital issues, news agencies were not ruined by the fact that the lower classes and others could quite easily access their material for free.

Let's see... I'm guessing daily prints of tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of copies for a large newspaper. Libraries would subscribe to their copies, maybe half a dozen to a dozen or so, so they would be paid for. How many libraries per village? Town? Large city? All you'd have to do was to get to the library and read. I think you can actually still do that. It's not free, it's paid for, though.

But this is not what you're suggesting for today's papers. You are suggesting the equivalent of hundreds, maybe thousands of papers being distributed to those in need, none of which will have been paid for.

Come now, you can't seriously seperate journalism from politics? Not unless you're only reading the Sunday issues. Any question about journalism is essentially a political question, with at least two sides to it.

Did you read what I actually wrote?

The fact that NYT and WP choose to charge for their content is not about politics. We are not discussing what's in that content.

Also, do you seriously want to move the argument in this direction? Because what I'm hearing then is an implied suggestion that the content should be provided for free and thus by the state or an organisation that pays for it? Seriously? Is that your grand idea?

Yeah, that's gone really well everywhere they've tried it.

And it's still not free. Somebody will have paid for it, most often the people.

[odeon]

You're mixing arguments, but let's go with this for a moment and ask if NYT and WP should be forced to offer their content for free, in the name of providing quality information for all.

Hang on. I don't think they should be forced to do anything of the kind. Persuaded maybe, encouraged maybe, facilitated maybe. Forced? No, definitely not.

My bad. You're just saying that because they hide behind paywalls, they can't possibly have left-wing, i.e. the (in this context) PC views.

The rise of Trump is about the cult of the moron. People voted him there, people who think that all arguments are equal. People who equate Google search results with peer-reviewed scientific papers. People who are unable to critically read a piece of information, regardless of where it comes from.

That's about as useless and counterproductive an observation as possible. Lets blame the stupid people?  Or better yet, shall we blame the stupid peoples'parents?

How is it not useful? I am stating facts, often painfully obvious. If I'm assigning blame, then it's about the blaming the society that somehow allowed this to be the norm.

It's an entirely different discussion to think of ways to fix the cult of the moron, though. I have plenty of ideas but none of them concerns making NYT or WP free for all if there is no business case for it for them. Keep in mind, though, that I was born and raised in Finland, a country whose schools are still widely considered to be among the best in the world and where populists like Trump or Boris have yet to find their place.

I'd much sooner hear some theories as how people in general got to be so stupid. One such theory credibly blames the tabloids for that as I'm sure you know  along with  various other knock-on efffects  of commercialism. Or you could credibly take issue with education .  Or you  might claim that there's "something in the water"... etc. chances are that whichever explanation you go with, it comes down to the underling cause(s) being  social and/or  political, and the corresponding potential  solutions being equally social and political.  Which is good news, i think. I mean,   it's gotta to be easier to address than the prospect adressing the huge excess of utterly stupid people who just happened, by sheer coincidence,  to get born at approximately the same point in history, and asking them to personally take responsibility for their gigantic fuck-ups.  I really don't see that getting us anywhere.

On an educational level, we could perhaps try to  implement a system that purposely trains kids in critical thinking.  And which provides them with a wide variety of media to practice on    And hey! maybe it's not too late to try that on the adults, too?

And that's about something else entirely than NYT and WP charging us for their services.

Nope, it's all interconnected, IMO,  as I hope my above example helps to demonstate? 

No, it doesn't. You again choose to engage in wishful thinking:

On an educational level, we could perhaps try to  implement a system that purposely trains kids in critical thinking.  And which provides them with a wide variety of media to practice on    And hey! maybe it's not too late to try that on the adults, too?

Please don't suggest that they're not already doing this, or at least trying? The question is not if we should attempt both but rather *how* we should do it. You're insulting a whole bunch of professionals in multiple countries if you're suggesting that they're not already doing their best to encourage critical thinking.

Like I said, I very much admire the Guardian Online for doing their bit in attempting to turn that journalistic tide; that is  by making paid subscription entirely voluntary. That might prove impacticably  idealistic , as you point out (though, hang on ,  the donation mode seems to work for Wikipedia doesn't it? )

Yes and no. It is easy to disrupt Wikipedia for long enough to propagate any kind of news you like. It also doesn't provide daily news, not really. It gets its reports from whatever sources that its editors - anyone who's registered and edited content there in the past, really - read. There are countless example of online papers without enough resources getting their facts from a temp edit of Wikipedia.

Not saying that Wikipedia isn't useful, only that its existence doesn't prove the sustainability of its model when applied to news.

Fair enough.

But it's better to try  doing something like that, than just shrug, call the whole deal a "fact of life"and do one's damnest to cling to one's revenue at all costs.  If they went the same route as WP, and resorted to hiding their content begind a paywall, then I would cease to regard them as a genuinely left-wing paper, because that really does amount to givng up on one's left-wing ideals , IMO, and allowing the tabloids and suchlike  to win the day. Can't find that especially blameworthy in WP's case (as far as I know, they're not left wing?) just a great pity. because if we end up with nothing but the left wing sector allowing free access to quality jourmalism and noth ing left to balance that out but Fox News, the Sun,  etc,  welll that wouldn't bode well either , would it?

The fact that WP elects to put their content behind a paywall decides their political bias?

No.  Try reading that para again, if it matters.   

I did:

If they went the same route as WP, and resorted to hiding their content begind a paywall, then I would cease to regard them as a genuinely left-wing paper

And looking ahead, this:

I think that a paper which had a sincere left  wing bias would try to keep their content accessible to all, like the Guardian does; as that effort is consistent with left wing beliefs.   I'm therefore guessing that WP is no such paper?  Might be wrong (note I put a question mark on that?)

Try reading your reply again. It does matter, just as you say but not in the way you thought. You define what's left-wing and discard everything that doesn't fit.

And btw, that's still not what we were discussing.

I don't read news based on the ideologies of my sources. I don't think anyone should.

Seems to me that news sources can't help but be biased by political ideology, though not always consciously biased. In the case of the tabloids, bias is flaming obvious, normally. In the case of the quality press, not so obvious,  and reveals itself in its selection of newsworthy topics., rather than in its treatment of those topics.

You're not replying to what I wrote.

I tend to think that a conscious, acknowledged bias is prefereable to  unconscious bias . I'd sooner have no particular bias at all, but I just don't believe that's humanly possible . Next best is to sample a range of conficting biases, ofc.  Which is why I'm so keen on the idea of a multi-journal package.  And next best , after that,  for me, is to go with  a left-wing bias, because i find that papers with a right-wing bias are apt to exclude too many  stories that i find very  relevant and intersting from their pages; and not because those stories are in any way fake, but rather because the average  right-wing reader would wish to dismiss them as fake; thus  printing at all them might easily amount to economic suicide; maintaining circulation is, understandably,  of paramount importance.

And now you're blaming the stupid while trying to show them the light.

Do you  really want free education for the masses to cease at age 16, and therafter become a privilege dependant on means? even when it comes to educating people in current affairs? It sounds like you do.  But in that case, i don't think that you've thought through the consequences .  It's not like the better-educated classes can insulate themselves from the wider social effects by hiding behing a pay wall , is it? Its not like they're happy with leaders like Trump and BJ  (Not all of them ,  anyway)

Nope. I didn't say so, so please don't put words in my mouth.

OK, I'll try to resist.  But are you willing to reciprocate?    At least i try not to sound so certain of my misreadings  (as it turns out)  as you do of yours.

I could just as well argue that you are, in effect, proposing state-owned media. And that's surely a recipe for objective, balanced news, right?

Like I said, I very much admire the Guardian Online for doing their bit in attempting to turn that journalistic tide; that is  by making paid subscription entirely voluntary. That might prove impacticably  idealistic , as you point out (though, hang on ,  the donation mode seems to work for Wikipedia doesn't it? )

Yes and no. It is easy to disrupt Wikipedia for long enough to propagate any kind of news you like. It also doesn't provide daily news, not really. It gets its reports from whatever sources that its editors - anyone who's registered and edited content there in the past, really - read. There are countless example of online papers without enough resources getting their facts from a temp edit of Wikipedia.

Not saying that Wikipedia isn't useful, only that its existence doesn't prove the sustainability of its model when applied to news.

But it's better to try  doing something like that, than just shrug, call the whole deal a "fact of life"and do one's damnest to cling to one's revenue at all costs.  If they went the same route as WP, and resorted to hiding their content begind a paywall, then I would cease to regard them as a genuinely left-wing paper, because that really does amount to givng up on one's left-wing ideals , IMO, and allowing the tabloids and suchlike  to win the day. Can't find that especially blameworthy in WP's case (as far as I know, they're not left winfg?) just a great pity. because if we end up with nothing but the left wing sector allowing free access to quality jourmalism and noth ing left to balance that out but Fox News, the Sun,  etc,  welll that wouldn't bode well either , would it?

The fact that WP elects to put their content behind a paywall decides their political bias?

I don't read news based on the ideologies of my sources. I don't think anyone should.

Do you  really want free education for the masses to cease at age 16, and therafter become a privilege dependant on means? even when it comes to educating people in current affairs? It sounds like you do.  But in that case, i don't think that you've thought through the consequences .  It's not like the better-educated classes can insulate themselves from the wider social effects by hiding behing a pay wall , is it? Its not like they're happy with leaders like Trump and BJ  (Not all of them ,  anyway)

Nope. I didn't say so, so please don't put words in my mouth.

I could just as well argue that you are, in effect, proposing state-owned media. And that's surely a recipe for objective, balanced news, right?

Quite  and no, perish the thought of a state-owned media.  I'm not propsing any such thing.  Something more along the lines of a state-funded library service would suit me just fine...on condition that "librarians" are perfectly free to choose the content,  ofc.

You're just making sure that the state gets to filter the media, then.

How is this different?

[Walkie]

I know you only realised there was more after posting the above, but seriously, Walkie, if you're interested in a serious conversation, make sure *you* bread everything first. Makes your argument look worse.

pretty sure you meant to say "read everything"? Now I've got this image stuck in my mind of me preparing loadsa food  (by covering it in breadcumbs)  before posting; which (leaving gluten issues aside) actually  doesn't seem like a half-way bad idea , now you mention it  and reminds me that i'm apt to neglect myself when writing. Y ea, even when writing dumb-ass posts on a backwater forum like this, as if part of me thinks that might actually help to set the world to rights,  or summat.

 But yeah, my bad. Point taken.  Thought I'd apologised already, but can't be arsed with scrolling back to check, In any case, there's surely no harm in apologing twice over, is there?  Am sorry.

[

Hint: there is a "Modify" button.

OK, rub it in why don't you.  Am still sorry.  Will that do?  here is a reason why I didn't think to use that button, but it's not a very intersting reason, nor  excuse as such, just a further variation on the clunky biological hardware theme.

Now I should write some responses to your other points, but i think i'll have to cherry-pick a bit for the sake of brevity, for the sake of preserving what's left of my brain, and for the sake of avoiding turning into the latest incarnation of Al, if it isn't too late    . I mean this interchange  is looking unnervingly familiar in terms of sprawling volume at the very  least.

And having said that, I will presently  make like  a good girl who intends to look after herself, and go take a break .

[odeon]

Don't worry, Walkie. No need to take a break. The difference between Al and the rest of us is that we will know when it's time to take one and say so.

[Pyraxis]

Can't figure out if that is meant as a backhanded insult. 

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

I didn't read every word, but I don't think there is anything to get too upset about here.

It's good to have a rant about something that you care about. Nobody got beat up, nobody got butthurt, it's all good.

[Gopher Gary]

"All Lives Matter" is a racist dog whistle.

If someone says "Save The Rainforest" we know that they don't mean "fuck all other types of forest". We don't insist that they say "Save All Forests".

I was just thinking of this song today, and it made me think of your post. 

[Walkie]

Don't worry, Walkie. No need to take a break. The difference between Al and the rest of us is that we will know when it's time to take one and say so.

I didn't read every word, but I don't think there is anything to get too upset about here.

It's good to have a rant about something that you care about. Nobody got beat up, nobody got butthurt, it's all good.

Thanks, guys but i wasn;t thinking  of the buthurt , nor even the walls of text.

I was thinking of the way Al will pick through your text like a demented insectologist, looking under every stone, scrutinising every bug. labelling them  all with infallible authority, and adding every one to his tardis-like knapsack . then, if he's pissed with you, or even a tad suspicious of you,  he;ll start to macjine-gun you with ancient and modern quotes, and demand explanations .

worse. if you don't make likewise with his posts, and be sure totake note of every dot and comma and answer accordingly, he'll take offense at that.

Worse still, we spazzes are apt to naturally overco-operate there., aren;t we?  We will   , all-too-often, religiously  answer every little point out of some sort of uniquely spazz notion of politeness . We don't need to be goaded by Al into bringing  that sort of close attention to the point of insufferable, we can do that all by ourselves

Unless you out sharpish, somewhere near the bef\ginning , the convo will sprawl and sprawl and sprawl, and you;ll end up swimming in lists of nested quotations, and close to losing your mind.

And in the end, you'll  probably throw in the towel  out of sheer mental exhaustion.

Now, to be fair to Al, I;m pretty sure that  I'm simply describing a spazz on steroids above.  He's not the only guilty party here , just the best example.  By and large,  we spazzes  don't l know when or how  to let things go, do we?  So it pays to be a teeny bit wary.


Anyway, so I was actually  taking a break from the convo due  to sheer fatigue, mostly generated by RL and the usual illness; but also  partly generated by the spectre of great big sprawls of nested quotes  . And now i'm using up my limited energy on meta-discussion.    Oh! and responding to you on that other thread, Mo, Can't claim your issues should take priority over setting the wor;ld to rights cos they're so much more important  can I? But seems to me that my input is more likely to have some sprt of  a positive effect on the smaller issues than the big ones

[odeon]

Well, Al is a spazz. Maybe not on steroids but it sure is something, these days.

[Al Swearegen]

Changing your username to All Lives Matter is a shit thing to do, Al.

You know what WOULD be a real shitty thing? Accusing someone of something they did not do? YOU ar not going to be that shitty are you Phienix. I would have expected a lot better from you. I am not hard to find online and if you are not sure if I am this username the the easiest thing to do is to ask rather than accuse.

So why are you being a shitty person? Curious.

The answer is Yes these are my words and I never posted them on I2 as AllLivesMatter. AllLivesMatter is not a nom de plume.

So why are you bullshitting about me?

[Al Swearegen]

Well, Al is a spazz. Maybe not on steroids but it sure is something, these days.

Bullshit assertions you would know are bullshit? Tinpot Tyrant. TYou played with the Admin Panel again didn't you Odeon. Why? You had too many beers? Got Butthurt and petty? Who knows and who care. The fact they you pretend to go along with what you know to be false is no lower than you have previously gone. Hell you will use my kids in arguments, sky is the limit in what you would do.

[Conspiracy Nut]

   this is like being in an XR meeting and everyone is trying to figure out who is secret police

[Al Swearegen]

Don't worry, Walkie. No need to take a break. The difference between Al and the rest of us is that we will know when it's time to take one and say so.

Can't figure out if that is meant as a backhanded insult. 

I think if the comment is from Odeon and about me, it is likely two things in about 100% of all cases: 1. it is a lie and 2. it is uncomplimentary. He can't himself. He is a butthurt idiot.

[Al Swearegen]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/17/boogaloo-steven-carrillo/?fbclid=IwAR2ztv4kq7722TwVdjrFx1w4L90VgdEpAMnmNcsmC7w6j_Nhhc5KP8tbwfk&utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

2 cops shot, one dead, near a peaceful BLM protest, by a white member of a right wing group  to start a race war.

Yep, thats what trumpolini and his acolytes want.  I'm sure al and his ilk would love that!

Why EXACTLY would I like a race war? Be very bloody specific.
Personally I would like to hope that after the Democrats supported and birthed slavery and the KKK in the US and the Republicans supported a fight to end Slavery 200 years ago that Americans could actually get along.
Still its YOUR fucking country. If YOU and YOUR countrymen can't collectively treat all people of all races equally after fighting a war to prevent slavery and repealing Jim Crow and other inequalities in your system. Then perhaps collectively America is a shitty country and you all collectively are shitty people.

Why are you a shitty person living in a shitty country?

How is that argument working out for you Ozy? Want to back up and try a different approach?

[Phoenix]

Changing your username to All Lives Matter is a shit thing to do, Al.

You know what WOULD be a real shitty thing? Accusing someone of something they did not do? YOU ar not going to be that shitty are you Phienix. I would have expected a lot better from you. I am not hard to find online and if you are not sure if I am this username the the easiest thing to do is to ask rather than accuse.

So why are you being a shitty person? Curious.

The answer is Yes these are my words and I never posted them on I2 as AllLivesMatter. AllLivesMatter is not a nom de plume.

So why are you bullshitting about me?

So you're not ALM but the content is still yours? I'm confused.