You Should Know @lemmy.world fullcircle @vlemmy.net 1 yr. ago

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.

32 comments

I’d suggest that a key exception to this is for state-funded, independent broadcasters such as the BBC, Deutsche Welle, the Australian ABC, NPR etc.

Because they have a profit-motive removed, I find that the quality of their journalism can often be higher than commercial media. Not always true (and it’s becoming increasingly untrue) but it’s the most common form of journalism that is both free to consume and of a relatively high quality.
- Oh, don't get me wrong, state-funded broadcasters can be excellent (or horrible, it really depends on the details). But when they are good, I would count them under the first case: they are being backed by the state itself (being charitable), and a lot of people like you use and love them.
  
  Public funding is a double-edged sword: it lets news reporters not worry about profiting, but focus on their actual job instead; and it also lets "news" agencies that stopped caring about reporting truth a long time ago not worry about needing to actually be useful to the public at large, instead only needing to keep the government decision-makers happy.
  
  Really comes down to the political system that backs it and the way it's handled.
- I'm unfamiliar with two of those, but I know BBC and NPR quite well. I'd be careful with believing that state media is "independent" just because it's written down somewhere that it is. Whatever they might say, it's still the government providing a great deal of their funding, and that same government can raise or lower the money they get.
  
  The BBC is notoriously slanted to the right, but I think gets its reputation laundered somewhat by American Democrats because the American center if much further to the right than Britain's. When you see how the Tories have attacked them so viciously for having a "left bias" (which is bullshit), it seems reasonable to guess that part of this drift is self-preservation of the organization at the cost of its usefulness to people other than Tories.
  
  NPR toes the Dem line slavishly, inviting to some extent attacks from the right (as Dem-aligned corporate news also does) but rarely even acknowledging that there is a left beyond them (as Dem-aligned corporate news also does).
- I have reconsidered some of what I said before, and edited the post text to reflect that. I would like to know what you think.
A lot of places in the US have (had?) small, weekly, free newspapers that are actually pretty good. They get by by being full of ads, often the kinds of ads more family-friendly outlets wouldn’t publish.
- In that case, I would say the advertisers are most directly paying the cost, and the readers are indirectly paying for it by sometimes buying the products that are advertised. I don't like ads, and I especially hate when people try to force others to view ads whether they want to or not, but they are still one source of revenue for goods which are nominally "free".
  
  And, as I mentioned at the end of my post, as much as I dislike them, these attempts to force ad viewing can also function as a form of "price", to put a limit on the number of people who bother with those sources, which can make it easier for them to keep up with the demands of those who tolerate that behavior. (Again, I don't like this, but I can't change it just by disliking it.)
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 Discourse^tm 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
I think you have completely forgotten about the average citizen journalist. In other words, if someone has a phone and they're in the right place at the right time, they can create a blog entry or short video and upload it to social media, and that might be 100% highly relevant news for which they have zero intent of making any money.

That's a very simple one-off example, but I think we can find countless examples of high quality blogs that provide us accurate and timely news on specific subjects, where the author has no intent to monetize.

If you would like to reframe your claim to involve indexing or aggregating, that might be interesting.
- Your first example is a very fair point, I wasn't thinking about people who basically stumble into something important and decide to publish it. But unless something very odd is happening, that will not happen over and over again to the same person. More likely, it may happen to them once and then they'll decide they want to become a regular citizen journalist, as you say, and then they will need to do a lot of work (with associated costs) even if they aren't getting paid for it. Which would be another example of my first suggestion.
  
  For the rest, I realize that there are plenty of examples where people provide accurate and timely information without charge (a lot of Lemmy is, and hopefully will continue to be, an example of that!). But those people are, for the most part, doing volunteer work, which is very valuable and healthy, but nevertheless is still work (that has costs).
  
  I was not claiming that free goods, or free news in particular, "can't" be worthwhile. Just that it implies that someone is supplying so much that goes above and beyond what a lot of people are trying to get that there is no need to charge for it. That can be an example of something very charitable and wonderful, or it can be an example of someone trying to push something that most people (rightly or wrongly) think is not very useful.
- I have reconsidered some of what I said before, and edited the post text to reflect that. I would like to know what you think.
I copy-pasted a bunch of short, redundant "replies" because I was trying to let people who I had disagreed with know that I had edited/changed some of my main argument. I knew that wasn't an ideal way, but I wasn't sure if and how I should "mention" their usernames instead. But I decided to just delete all the redundant messages because I know that can be very annoying for people trying to scroll through all the comments. I guess they'll either see my changes and tell me what they think or everyone will just move on.
Can you give examples of 1) and 2) ?
- Instigate already gave what they called exceptions, but I mostly think are actually some examples of 1):
  
  state-funded, independent broadcasters such as the BBC, Deutsche Welle, the Australian ABC, NPR etc.
  
  I haven't listened to the Australian ABC, but I have spent some time listening to all those others, and I think they have all been pretty good, at least at some times in the past.
  
  And even though we are primarily talking about formal news organizations, not free software specific stuff, since we are using free software I would like to at least mention that the FSF and other free software publishers and advocates (like the EFF, and even some the FSF has significant disagreements with, like Debian) can be good sources on a lot of things too, and for the most part are charities.
  
  As examples of 2), keeping in mind that I did not say they are all inherently bad, just that a lot of people don't think they are very useful or don't use them much, and they do not primarily exist for charitable reasons, I would cite some state-funded nonindependent broadcasters like VoA/RFE/RL, Xinhua, RT/Sputnik, etc.
  
  Edit: But apparently I did say if they also publish timely news, then they are "likely ... not a very credible news source". Crap. I'm gonna change that "likely" to "may ~~not~~ be".
  
  I don't understand how "a lot of people like and use it" from 1) precludes "it is still being offered/promoted by someone who has some other motive" from 2) being true for the same outlet.
somebody say free beer?

You've viewed 32 comments.