Here's why you should pay-the-wall and support quality journalism...

Here's why you should pay-the-wall and support quality journalism...

Summary: Newspaper paywalls have come under attack but how else can we support quality media so that we can make the right decisions as a society?

TOPICS: Browser

I don't understand the current debate over the New York Times paywall. Yes, it has holes in it and yes it is a bit lame but the question it asks is: will you support quality journalism?

That's an important question.

But it seems that the Geekorati believe that once something is free then it should be free forever, and that if you can get past the New York Times paywall, then you are smart.

I disagree and here's why:

I remember when the Internet first started, when domain names were free. When the first advertising appeared on the Internet it was greeted with howls of derision. The pundits claimed that Internet users wouldn't stand for it.

Well, we got used to it and that's what will happen to quality journalism — we will get used to paying for it, and dare I say it: see it as a civic duty.

Because there has to be a mechanism to pay for the good stuff. Otherwise we will be overrun with mediocre and poor quality content.

That's a very bad thing.

We need serious journalists to be healthy and able to challenge the claims of companies and governments, and to stand up to those that buy freedom of speech through money, through PR and other means.

We need quality journalism because: media is how a society thinks about things.

Media is vital to our decision process.

Software engineers are familiar with the expression "garbage in, garbage out."

If we, as a society, have garbage media, then we will make garbage decisions.

We are facing a media landscape that is becoming ever more dominated by garbage media and that means that we, as a society, will be making bad decisions.

And we have some very important decisions to make, about: energy, education, environment, economy, elder care, external conflicts -- and that's just the "e" subjects... There's more, far more, yet we are witnessing a whole scale dumbing down of our media, and therefore a dumbing down of our ability to make the right choices.

We need good media to make the right decisions and to make a good society for ourselves and our communities.

I hope you can join me, it doesn't have to be supporting the New York Times, it can be a local newspaper that you admire but it is important to support quality journalism wherever you see it.

"Pay the wall" and help to make an important contribution to the quality of our society and government.

Topic: Browser

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • RE: Here's why you should pay-the-wall and support quality journalism...

    I would (and am) happy to pay for quality journalism be it newspaper, TV or journal, and be it paper, digital or otherwise. Unfortunately much of the free 'journalism' has a value that reflects its price (FOX, CNN and others) and is mostly read/viewed and consumed without thought by the great grumbling masses.
    • Message has been deleted.

      Robert Hahn
  • RE: Here's why you should pay-the-wall and support quality journalism...

    Newspapers stopped being about quality journalism a long time ago. The sooner they die, the better.
    • RE: Here's why you should pay-the-wall and support quality journalism...

      @intman Newspapers/TV in the US lost their quality decades ago my friend. That alone speaks to the lack of 'worldliness' of the average american. Unfortunately they are fed nonsense and hate by the likes of FOX
      • HAHAHAAHA such nonsense and hate from you. FOX certainly covers the news

        more factually and with less bias than ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, or MSNBC. If you want hate msnbc is the place to find steaming piles of it. nyt lost it's credibility long ago when they decided to become one sided left wing shills. They drove their own subscribers away.
        Johnny Vegas
      • Message has been deleted.

      • Message has been deleted.

      • bitcrazed: O'Reilly and Beck, are in the "commentary" section of FOX

        news.<br><br>Apparently, you don't understand the difference between "news" and opinion/commentary/analysis. <br><br>But, instead of casting aspersions, why not pick out some samples where FOX is biased or reports nonsense, just so we can understand exactly where you're coming from.<br><br>People don't have to tune in to FOX, yet, they do it, giving FOX an audience larger than all the other cable news networks combined. So, that would make the majority of "news and commentary" consumers biased and/or brain-dead, according to people like you. Or, perhaps it's the other way around, where you are incapable of noticing the bias in the news in other media outlets, and will never understand why FOX has become the news channel preferred by most cable news watchers.
    • RE: Here's why you should pay-the-wall and support quality journalism...

      @intman Rubbish. There's the world of a difference between news and comment. I'm happy to pay for well written comment and find it in The Economist and The London Times.
      • RE: Here's why you should pay-the-wall and support quality journalism...


        The Economist is an exception to the rule. The Times of London? not so much
  • &quot;Quality journalism&quot; taught me

    that the sale is much more important than any journalistic integrity. And unbiased truth doesn't sell, so it's all about the spin. "Here's some boring news. How do we present this so that people will pay for it?"

    If it's in print, then it's a lie.
    • RE: Here's why you should pay-the-wall and support quality journalism...

      @Ronny102 - <i>"If it's in print, then it's a lie. "</i>

      Ohhhh ... so you subscribe to the belief that if its on the interwebs then it's the truth? Please tell me you're not THAT naive?
      • Your criticism of the &quot;interwebs&quot; is very outdated and out of fashion

        because, when it comes to news and information and opinion and analysis, it has become the largest medium where people look to get "informed" or even "misinformed"; but, it's still a medium where all of the media sources have become players in the distribution of the news and opinion.

        It's up to people, who hopefully have at least some common sense, to know how to find the information they seek and to be able to tell truth from lies, and facts from opinion.

        So, you need to upgrade your criticism of the internet and come up to a more knowledgeable recognition of what it has become.
  • Quality journalism has been under attack for a long time.

    Indeed, many people argue that it has never really existed other than as an idealized fantasy. Journalists have always been beholden to corporate interests, subject to government suasion, and besotted with the pursuit of celebrity. The internet is the latest of a long line of "journalism killers" including radio, film, and television, each decried in their time.<br><br>To me, the decline of serious journalism is not caused so much by the internet itself, but rather the decline of <b>interest</b> in serious journalism. The citizen consumer of today just doesn't care. Investigative work is met with public and official apathy unless it involves a small number of hot buttons in the American psyche, namely sex and taxes. Dishonesty, chicanery, and malfeasance by government and corporate leaders are generally ignored or accepted by the public, so why expend the effort?<br><br>Most people cannot or will not admit to being apathetic, but the numbers don't lie: in an era of historically low approval ratings for Congress, the vast majority are still re-elected to office. Wall Street is still playing their brazen stock scams. Infomercials guide more purchases than do the test results of Consumer Reports.

    <b>Update [5pm EDT]: After a quick browse through the other comments, I rest my case.</b><br><br>Not all is lost. There are still people who pay extravagantly for <b>information</b> as opposed to generic news. It may not be a path to celebrity and adoration by millions, but it does put food on the table.
    terry flores
    • RE: Here's why you should pay-the-wall and support quality journalism...

      @terry flores
      you said it best
      bill guida
  • RE: Here's why you should pay-the-wall and support quality journalism...

    I pay the wall for two other newspapers (about 8$ a month each) but the cost is about half that of the NYT. For sites where I only occasionally go beyond the front pages and also for a site with a high cost like the NYT we need a good micro payment scheme, say 5 or 10cents per screen.
  • Quallity media is already being AD supported

    That is all the support that most media outlets should need in this day and age.
  • Sadly the NYT hasn't provided 'quality journalism' in a long time.

    If they were to return to 'reporting' the news rather than 'spinning' it, then I would be willing to pay (as I do for other outlets), but given the decline in quality over the last 20 years, they have no-one to blame but themselves if they go under.

    It's not the internet killing newspapers, it's the newspapers and their corporate owners doing it themselves.

  • RE: Here's why you should pay-the-wall and support quality journalism...

    Since when does money = quality journalism? It just means journalists get paid. Whether they produce quality journalism is another matter altogether.

    Oh, and I defy you to get more than three randomly selected people to give you a common definition of "quality journalism".
  • RE: Here's why you should pay-the-wall and support quality journalism...

    The much-vaunted "Liberal" American press is only as liberal as their conservative awners.