| Journalism 2017 on 10:54 - Aug 3 with 2212 views | GlasgowBlue |
I was reading an article which suggests that it's hard for somebody to read centre right news reporting without paying fir it was as left wing publications are free.
The Times, the Telegraph, The Spectator, the FT, and the Economist all have paywalls whereas the Guardian, the New Statesman, the Independent, the Huffington Post and BBC Online are all free.
The loonyer element of right wing publications like Breitbart or Mail Online are free. |  |
|  |
| Journalism 2017 on 10:57 - Aug 3 with 2195 views | unbelievablue |
| Journalism 2017 on 10:54 - Aug 3 by GlasgowBlue |
I was reading an article which suggests that it's hard for somebody to read centre right news reporting without paying fir it was as left wing publications are free.
The Times, the Telegraph, The Spectator, the FT, and the Economist all have paywalls whereas the Guardian, the New Statesman, the Independent, the Huffington Post and BBC Online are all free.
The loonyer element of right wing publications like Breitbart or Mail Online are free. |
Before anyone else does, I will challenge the assertion that BBC Online is a left wing publication. |  |
| |
| Journalism 2017 on 10:58 - Aug 3 with 2191 views | vapour_trail |
| Journalism 2017 on 10:54 - Aug 3 by GlasgowBlue |
I was reading an article which suggests that it's hard for somebody to read centre right news reporting without paying fir it was as left wing publications are free.
The Times, the Telegraph, The Spectator, the FT, and the Economist all have paywalls whereas the Guardian, the New Statesman, the Independent, the Huffington Post and BBC Online are all free.
The loonyer element of right wing publications like Breitbart or Mail Online are free. |
I have a telegraph app that is foc.
BBC online is not a left wing publication. |  |
| |
| Journalism 2017 on 11:01 - Aug 3 with 2180 views | SomethingBlue |
| Journalism 2017 on 10:54 - Aug 3 by GlasgowBlue |
I was reading an article which suggests that it's hard for somebody to read centre right news reporting without paying fir it was as left wing publications are free.
The Times, the Telegraph, The Spectator, the FT, and the Economist all have paywalls whereas the Guardian, the New Statesman, the Independent, the Huffington Post and BBC Online are all free.
The loonyer element of right wing publications like Breitbart or Mail Online are free. |
It's not hard though. You just have to pay a small amount — as you should, really, for the work and craft that goes into it — and then you can read it to your heart's content. The Times, for one, charges very reasonably.
(Good try re BBC ... !) [Post edited 3 Aug 2017 11:01]
|  |
| |
| Journalism 2017 on 11:07 - Aug 3 with 2163 views | Steve_M |
| Journalism 2017 on 10:54 - Aug 3 by GlasgowBlue |
I was reading an article which suggests that it's hard for somebody to read centre right news reporting without paying fir it was as left wing publications are free.
The Times, the Telegraph, The Spectator, the FT, and the Economist all have paywalls whereas the Guardian, the New Statesman, the Independent, the Huffington Post and BBC Online are all free.
The loonyer element of right wing publications like Breitbart or Mail Online are free. |
Quite possibly, certainly after the great period when one could dip into any online news very easily, the quality has declined. There is still a lot of good journalism around but the need for numbers of views online has meant that tedious clickbait predominates. The Telgraph manages to combine the worst of both these days.
Also, I suspect people now view articles that are of interest rather than reading the entire paper. I doubt too many ever read cover to cover but I tend to read more widely on a physical paper than online (except The Economist which I read most of weekly in combination online or paper).
I'm not really sure BBC Online is particularly leftish, most of the content is so bland as to be apolitical. |  |
| |
| Journalism 2017 on 11:19 - Aug 3 with 2118 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Journalism 2017 on 10:58 - Aug 3 by vapour_trail |
I have a telegraph app that is foc.
BBC online is not a left wing publication. |
BBC has seemed fairly left wing recently!! Pretty standard for a public body. |  |
| |
| Journalism 2017 on 11:48 - Aug 3 with 2074 views | Ryorry |
| Journalism 2017 on 11:07 - Aug 3 by Steve_M |
Quite possibly, certainly after the great period when one could dip into any online news very easily, the quality has declined. There is still a lot of good journalism around but the need for numbers of views online has meant that tedious clickbait predominates. The Telgraph manages to combine the worst of both these days.
Also, I suspect people now view articles that are of interest rather than reading the entire paper. I doubt too many ever read cover to cover but I tend to read more widely on a physical paper than online (except The Economist which I read most of weekly in combination online or paper).
I'm not really sure BBC Online is particularly leftish, most of the content is so bland as to be apolitical. |
I'd have thought it obvious that since paper sales have declined (which isn't a bad thing from the environmental point of view), and people have increasingly relied on online news, quality papers have had to start charging, which imho is fair enough - journos still have to be paid, and many people have ad-blockers.
I think the Guardian's is the way to go - I'm happy to pay a voluntary £50 p/a to assist the continuation of good quality journalism, and for that I can read everything on their site, seems good value to me. |  |
| |
| Journalism 2017 on 11:50 - Aug 3 with 2069 views | GeoffSentence |
| Journalism 2017 on 10:54 - Aug 3 by GlasgowBlue |
I was reading an article which suggests that it's hard for somebody to read centre right news reporting without paying fir it was as left wing publications are free.
The Times, the Telegraph, The Spectator, the FT, and the Economist all have paywalls whereas the Guardian, the New Statesman, the Independent, the Huffington Post and BBC Online are all free.
The loonyer element of right wing publications like Breitbart or Mail Online are free. |
BBC for free centre right content. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Journalism 2017 on 13:14 - Aug 3 with 2017 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Journalism 2017 on 11:48 - Aug 3 by Ryorry |
I'd have thought it obvious that since paper sales have declined (which isn't a bad thing from the environmental point of view), and people have increasingly relied on online news, quality papers have had to start charging, which imho is fair enough - journos still have to be paid, and many people have ad-blockers.
I think the Guardian's is the way to go - I'm happy to pay a voluntary £50 p/a to assist the continuation of good quality journalism, and for that I can read everything on their site, seems good value to me. |
Its an issue that has been affecting my industry for sometime, and has been exacerbated somewhat by the digital revolution, and latterly, by the impact of social media.
When I trained as a photojournalist, back in 2004, the digital market place was still (relatively speaking) in its infancy, yet the industry was already been massively affected by the good old world wide web. Advertisers were leaving traditional newsprint in droves, and thats a significant understatement, this led to the first massive cut in newspaper revenue and led to some appropriate 'cutting of the cloth' within the industry.
Photojournalists were first in the firing line for cuts, as the beancounters at various publications saw the cutting of photographers as a small price to pay. The remaining photographers had their workload doubled, (obviously for no more pay) and newspapers starting significantly cutting the fees paid to freelance photographers and journalists for their work.
This led to an inevitable drop in quality of journalism within newspaper articles and sadly, the end of picture led stories. Newspaper accountants didn't appreciate at the time, but pictures, (in particular heavily picture led pieces), sell newspapers in a way that pure text cannot, people are always more content to look at pictures than they are to read text, and the images serve to lead the reading into the story itself.
Of course this dumbing down of picture content, caused another decline in sales, but by the time this was realised by newspapers, the genie was well and truly out of the bottle. The quality photojournalists of the time, people like Don McCullin and Roger Allen had moved on and out of the newspaper game.
Online content became the way forward for news organisations, there was more opportunity for advertising revenue, and instant access for millions even billions of 'readers' and advertisers were prepared to pay once again for this kind of hit percentage on their websites, this is how The Mail Online became the most read news site in the world.
Unfortunately the move to the WWW caused the third slump in the industry, as people moved completely away from traditional newsprint, why should they stump up £2.50 a week for a daily paper when they can get it for free, right? News budgets were slashed overnight on around 2/3rds of UK newspapers in late 2010 and budgets for investigative journalism went with them.
The focus shifted to 'mass interest' stories which had been selling well for the previous 18 months, which, decrypted means, Celebrity, Reality (X-Faxtor etc) and stories on strange events, all of these stories drove huge amounts of traffic through websites and thus generated (generates) huge amounts of advertising revenue.
Of course the issue with huge web platforms is having enough content to keep people coming back, and so outlets started taking content from wherever they can get it. Freelance 'journalists' with no formal training, Twitter, Instagram pictures and paying precisely nothing for it. The term 'Citizen Journalist' in the trade is a tounge in cheek term for someone willing to supply images or a story for nothing more than seeing their name on a website or in a newspaper. This practice is directly relatable to the emergence of 'fake news'
Journalism is under massive threat right now, in particular from unchecked or edited 'fake news' but also from continuing cuts to journalism budgets.
Please do go with the £50 pa donation to the Guardian, but I'd be far happier and you'd be doing quality journalism a far greater service if everyone actually started buying news papers again. |  |
| |
| Journalism 2017 on 13:19 - Aug 3 with 2002 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Journalism 2017 on 11:01 - Aug 3 by SomethingBlue |
It's not hard though. You just have to pay a small amount — as you should, really, for the work and craft that goes into it — and then you can read it to your heart's content. The Times, for one, charges very reasonably.
(Good try re BBC ... !) [Post edited 3 Aug 2017 11:01]
|
I'm not complaining. I have a subscription to the Torygraph and the Spectator.
Yes the Beeb comment reeled a few in didn't it? ;-) | |
| |
| Journalism 2017 on 13:21 - Aug 3 with 2000 views | Darth_Koont |
Isn't that effectively the majority of journalism over the past 10 years. Ever since online media has kicked off then you've got half the number of journalists producing double the content.
"Copy, paste and rejig" is the only logical result in 90% of the business models. But ironic that they're moving into PR and now also supplying stories to make life easier for overworked journalists. Admittedly they'll likely have better hours and better pay. |  |
| |
| Journalism 2017 on 15:24 - Aug 3 with 1936 views | Ryorry |
| Journalism 2017 on 13:14 - Aug 3 by Cheltenham_Blue |
Its an issue that has been affecting my industry for sometime, and has been exacerbated somewhat by the digital revolution, and latterly, by the impact of social media.
When I trained as a photojournalist, back in 2004, the digital market place was still (relatively speaking) in its infancy, yet the industry was already been massively affected by the good old world wide web. Advertisers were leaving traditional newsprint in droves, and thats a significant understatement, this led to the first massive cut in newspaper revenue and led to some appropriate 'cutting of the cloth' within the industry.
Photojournalists were first in the firing line for cuts, as the beancounters at various publications saw the cutting of photographers as a small price to pay. The remaining photographers had their workload doubled, (obviously for no more pay) and newspapers starting significantly cutting the fees paid to freelance photographers and journalists for their work.
This led to an inevitable drop in quality of journalism within newspaper articles and sadly, the end of picture led stories. Newspaper accountants didn't appreciate at the time, but pictures, (in particular heavily picture led pieces), sell newspapers in a way that pure text cannot, people are always more content to look at pictures than they are to read text, and the images serve to lead the reading into the story itself.
Of course this dumbing down of picture content, caused another decline in sales, but by the time this was realised by newspapers, the genie was well and truly out of the bottle. The quality photojournalists of the time, people like Don McCullin and Roger Allen had moved on and out of the newspaper game.
Online content became the way forward for news organisations, there was more opportunity for advertising revenue, and instant access for millions even billions of 'readers' and advertisers were prepared to pay once again for this kind of hit percentage on their websites, this is how The Mail Online became the most read news site in the world.
Unfortunately the move to the WWW caused the third slump in the industry, as people moved completely away from traditional newsprint, why should they stump up £2.50 a week for a daily paper when they can get it for free, right? News budgets were slashed overnight on around 2/3rds of UK newspapers in late 2010 and budgets for investigative journalism went with them.
The focus shifted to 'mass interest' stories which had been selling well for the previous 18 months, which, decrypted means, Celebrity, Reality (X-Faxtor etc) and stories on strange events, all of these stories drove huge amounts of traffic through websites and thus generated (generates) huge amounts of advertising revenue.
Of course the issue with huge web platforms is having enough content to keep people coming back, and so outlets started taking content from wherever they can get it. Freelance 'journalists' with no formal training, Twitter, Instagram pictures and paying precisely nothing for it. The term 'Citizen Journalist' in the trade is a tounge in cheek term for someone willing to supply images or a story for nothing more than seeing their name on a website or in a newspaper. This practice is directly relatable to the emergence of 'fake news'
Journalism is under massive threat right now, in particular from unchecked or edited 'fake news' but also from continuing cuts to journalism budgets.
Please do go with the £50 pa donation to the Guardian, but I'd be far happier and you'd be doing quality journalism a far greater service if everyone actually started buying news papers again. |
Buying a daily cannot be justified on environmental grounds, nor is it possible for me either financially or practically (I live 12 miles from the nearest newsagent, and there are no deliveries).
Good post tho  | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
