Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-19-2019, 12:35 AM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,894

Please, quit using articles behind paywalls as your sources (mild)


I'm probably not the only one who feels this way. Someone posts an article or a link to support an argument, but it's on a website where you have to either sign up to read, or be a paying subscriber. I find that really fucking annoying. Not to mention a lot of times people don't even bother mentioning that there's a paywall.

Some websites, like the WaPo, only let you read so many articles for free, or you have to disable ad blockers.

I don't think there should be a rule about this, just that it's kind of a douchey thing to do. YMMV
  #2  
Old 09-19-2019, 12:44 AM
Leaffan's Avatar
Leaffan is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24,588
I totally agree. This doesn't really happen much here, but it sure does on Facebook.

I get three seconds of reading before the paywall screen pops up.

I doubt I'll ever pay for my news, but who knows?

Last edited by Leaffan; 09-19-2019 at 12:45 AM.
  #3  
Old 09-19-2019, 01:03 AM
Annoyed is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
I'm probably not the only one who feels this way. Someone posts an article or a link to support an argument, but it's on a website where you have to either sign up to read, or be a paying subscriber. I find that really fucking annoying. Not to mention a lot of times people don't even bother mentioning that there's a paywall.

Some websites, like the WaPo, only let you read so many articles for free, or you have to disable ad blockers.

I don't think there should be a rule about this, just that it's kind of a douchey thing to do. YMMV
Itís stupid for sure but WaPo is easy enough to get around. Just delete their cookies and youíre in again.
  #4  
Old 09-19-2019, 02:13 AM
steatopygia's Avatar
steatopygia is online now
Experimental FOC Test Pilot
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: North Idaho mostly
Posts: 1,817
On a related note, why does Google news do this? They have hundreds of sources for every story and yet they consistently show the one behind a paywall.
  #5  
Old 09-19-2019, 02:52 AM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,242
At times I've wondered how much disinformation gets spread to the public on account of the fact that if you look up a story, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the LA Times are all paywalled, but the Washington Times, Breitbart, and Daily Caller aren't.

Last edited by Smapti; 09-19-2019 at 02:52 AM.
  #6  
Old 09-19-2019, 03:04 AM
ticker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,069
I'm guessing that if you are a subscriber the paywall becomes transparent and you forget that others can't see what you see.
  #7  
Old 09-19-2019, 04:37 AM
kambuckta is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Pilbara, Australia.
Posts: 10,091
On a similar note, don't post fucken links to YouTube without some sort of commentary. I am NOT going to sit through x minutes of video to get you point, especially when I'm working.
  #8  
Old 09-19-2019, 05:13 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
I'm probably not the only one who feels this way. Someone posts an article or a link to support an argument, but it's on a website where you have to either sign up to read, or be a paying subscriber. I find that really fucking annoying. Not to mention a lot of times people don't even bother mentioning that there's a paywall.

Some websites, like the WaPo, only let you read so many articles for free, or you have to disable ad blockers.

I don't think there should be a rule about this, just that it's kind of a douchey thing to do. YMMV
I disagree. There’s nothing douchey about the idea that truthful information or valuable content is worth an exchange of value. People should pay for news, especially the news from high-quality news operations.

And if the source is actually offering content for merely signing up, and not charging money, then there’s no issue. If you want the information, then just sign up. It’s not douchey to link to it. If signing up is somehow beyond your capacity, that’s on you.

People should become accustomed to the idea that professionals producing news need to be paid. An occasional reminder of that from a link to a paywalled article—or even a limited free offer—is a good thing.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.

Last edited by Acsenray; 09-19-2019 at 05:15 AM.
  #9  
Old 09-19-2019, 05:17 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,037
While I agree professionals need to be paid, and I do, in fact, subscribe to a couple of news sources, I can not afford to subscribe to ALL of them.

Yes, when you're subscribed you can easily forget about the paywall.

Even so, linked to a paywalled article without a heads up is on the douche side. Ditto for linking to a video and expecting people to sit through 20/30/40 minutes of video, or an hour or two, to get to the point.

Not the end of the world, but it is annoying.
  #10  
Old 09-19-2019, 05:22 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,572
I kind of agree if we're talking about a hard paywall like The (London) Times, but every browser I know of provides a solution that takes two or three clicks at most to get through a soft paywall (including the one used by the Washington Post).

For those who are unaware, you right click on the link (or tap and hold in a mobile browser) and choose to open it in a private/incognito tab.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 09-19-2019 at 05:25 AM.
  #11  
Old 09-19-2019, 05:23 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
While I agree professionals need to be paid, and I do, in fact, subscribe to a couple of news sources, I can not afford to subscribe to ALL of them.
Yes, you cannot pay for all of them. Which means that for some of them youíll have to register for free access, some of them you'll use the limited free function, and some of them youíll have to rely on the posterís use of limited quotes. If itís really import for you to read the original source in a particular instance maybe youíll decide to purchase one-time access. Thatís how it was before the internet after all, only much less convenient. The internet gives you convenience, but no one owes you free references (especially when it actually is free, like with free registration).
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #12  
Old 09-19-2019, 05:28 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
While I agree professionals need to be paid, and I do, in fact, subscribe to a couple of news sources, I can not afford to subscribe to ALL of them.
Yeah, unfortunately they're all still stuck on the antiquated 20th century model of subscribing to "the paper" and having the whole thing dropped on your porch. You either subscribe to the whole damn paper or not, even if you don't use 90% of it.
  #13  
Old 09-19-2019, 05:28 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,231
I do agree that itís a courtesy to warn about a paywall or registration, especially if itís apparent to the user.

The video issue is completely different. All links of any kind should be either described or otherwise clear as to the content.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #14  
Old 09-19-2019, 05:51 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Yes, you cannot pay for all of them. Which means that for some of them youíll have to register for free access, some of them you'll use the limited free function, and some of them youíll have to rely on the posterís use of limited quotes. If itís really import for you to read the original source in a particular instance maybe youíll decide to purchase one-time access. Thatís how it was before the internet after all, only much less convenient. The internet gives you convenience, but no one owes you free references (especially when it actually is free, like with free registration).
Agreed. News media are in dire straits these days, and complaining about how people are using them and discussing them even when you won't pay them? I'm not down with that complaint.
  #15  
Old 09-19-2019, 05:55 AM
Joey P is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 29,197
It was mentioned already, but it's worth repeating. If you're a subscriber and always logged in, you likely don't realize that other people can't view the article.

Quote:
Originally Posted by steatopygia View Post
On a related note, why does Google news do this? They have hundreds of sources for every story and yet they consistently show the one behind a paywall.
Yahoo does this as well. I'm assuming that the news the put on their front page is less curated and more paid to be there by the website that links to it, like an ad for the site.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Itís stupid for sure but WaPo is easy enough to get around. Just delete their cookies and youíre in again.
Any website that works like that (my local paper is one), can usually be bypassed by right clicking on the link and opening it in a private/incognito mode.


Also, if I have to disable my adblocker, I'll leave a site as well.
  #16  
Old 09-19-2019, 06:24 AM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,370
I don't mind paywalls in general, nor even the OP's complaint about links on the Dope to articles behind them. But I am down with the complaint about Google returning paywalled links because often you can find the same story on a non paywalled site so why burn up your hits? And I also dislike any paywalled paper having a video link show up because I will not watch video articles but they still burn up my articles. Once I burnt up all of my articles because I thought that I was mistaken and the video was the wrong link so I kept trying to get to the "real" article.
  #17  
Old 09-19-2019, 06:32 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,050
I hear what yu're saying, OP, but sometimes the paywalled article is the only reporting of certain stories. WaPo is good for that. If I can, I try to also provide an un-paywalled link, but that's not always possible.
  #18  
Old 09-19-2019, 07:07 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 24,731
Speaking as one of the board's foreigners, who often have to scour the web in order to find a cite in English: if you can't post something everyone here can read, then STFU.

Last edited by Alessan; 09-19-2019 at 07:07 AM.
  #19  
Old 09-19-2019, 08:11 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
Speaking as one of the board's foreigners, who often have to scour the web in order to find a cite in English: if you can't post something everyone here can read, then STFU.
Say what now? You're seriously saying we should shut up rather than cite newspapers of record?
  #20  
Old 09-19-2019, 08:14 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 24,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Say what now? You're seriously saying we should shut up rather than cite newspapers of record?
If we can't post stuff you can't read, you can't post stuff we can't read.




(Or at least, copy and paste the pertinent paragraphs besides providing a link. We'll take your word that it's from there).
  #21  
Old 09-19-2019, 08:15 AM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,733
You get to read the title of the article, and if the information is that important to you, you can pay to subscribe. That's actually how subscriptions work.
  #22  
Old 09-19-2019, 08:19 AM
boffking is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: New England
Posts: 2,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by steatopygia View Post
On a related note, why does Google news do this? They have hundreds of sources for every story and yet they consistently show the one behind a paywall.
Google is an advertising company. They are likely being paid by the sources to drum up business.
  #23  
Old 09-19-2019, 08:30 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
If we can't post stuff you can't read, you can't post stuff we can't read.
Is that your habit in all human interactions? If someone can't provide you free access to the full content of some communicative work--a film, a book, a painting, a sculpture, an article--you tell em to shut up about it?
  #24  
Old 09-19-2019, 08:37 AM
Spiderman's Avatar
Spiderman is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: somewhere East of there
Posts: 10,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
I kind of agree if we're talking about a hard paywall like The (London) Times, but every browser I know of provides a solution that takes two or three clicks at most to get through a soft paywall (including the one used by the Washington Post).

For those who are unaware, you right click on the link (or tap and hold in a mobile browser) and choose to open it in a private/incognito tab.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
Any website that works like that (my local paper is one), can usually be bypassed by right clicking on the link and opening it in a private/incognito mode.
Wrong. The OP in this thread links to a WaPo article; they prevent viewing in private browser mode, presumably since it's doesn't retain cookies & therefore easier for you to read over your allocation. It's effort &/or beyond the technical abilities of some people to delete certain cookies from your browser.

My solution, if I really want to read something is that I have a couple of extra browsers (Tor & DuckDuckGo on mobile, SeaMonkey & PaleMoon on PC) that I only use for this type of thing. After I look at whatever I want to I delete all cookies/browsing history/passwords/etc. when I exit them. It's easier to delete all than selective cookies & that way I don't affect the cookies/signins on my primary browser (email, Dope, etc.)
  #25  
Old 09-19-2019, 08:42 AM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,733
Or you could pay for the services you are using. It's $1 for the first month.
  #26  
Old 09-19-2019, 08:52 AM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,417
Yeah, sorry Guin: bad idea.

Some of the most reliable sources of original reporting are behind soft paywalls, and I don't think we should stop citing the best newspapers in the country just because some people might need to take an extra two or three seconds to use a workaround and read the story.

There's another issue, too. Some websites hide some, but not all, of their articles behind the paywall, and if you're someone who has a subscription, it's often impossible to tell which is which. For example, the New York Times' recent 1619 Project is, I believe, available to everyone, whether or not you're a subscriber.

I subscribe to the New York Times and the Washington Post, and if I need to cite one of them to support my argument, then that's what I'm going to do. I understand that we can't subscribe to everything. I wish I could justify the cost of a sub to the Los Angeles Times, but even a few bucks a week begins to add up if you have subscriptions all over the place.

I do think that people should be mindful of paywalls when posting links, and should, where possible, either summarize the key points of the article, or quote some relevant sentences or paragraphs. And if someone else wants to finds a free version of the same news story, then by all means go ahead and post it. But I'm not going to stop using paywalled sources; doing that would be an explicit caving in to the obsession with "free" news that has helped so much to reduce the amount of high-quality journalism.

There are good and reliable free sources of news. One is The Guardian. You'll get a nag paragraph at the bottom asking you to donate in order to support their journalism (something I've done a couple of times), but they don't paywall their articles. Public or quasi-public entities like the BBC (UK), CBC (Canada), ABC (Australia), and NPR also often do excellent journalism, and make it available for no cost. Some content on these sites, especially video, is sometimes geo-fenced, meaning you can't watch it unless you're in the home country, but the text stories are nearly always available worldwide. Al Jazeera is free.

Last edited by mhendo; 09-19-2019 at 08:52 AM.
  #27  
Old 09-19-2019, 08:58 AM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderman View Post
It's effort &/or beyond the technical abilities of some people to delete certain cookies from your browser.
Some effort? I'll grant you that. But "beyond the technical abilities"? Give me fucking break!

I just cleared the LA Times cookies from my browser, without deleting any other cookies or browsing history. It took about half a dozen clicks, and all of 10 seconds or so. And doing that gives you four LA Times articles that you can read before you need to do it again. Other soft-paywall newspapers work in a similar way.

If you can't go to that much effort, then you were probably never really very interested in the issue in the first place, and should probably just stay out of the thread.
  #28  
Old 09-19-2019, 08:59 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderman View Post
Wrong. The OP in this thread links to a WaPo article; they prevent viewing in private browser mode, presumably since it's doesn't retain cookies & therefore easier for you to read over your allocation.
I'm doing it right now. I get the paywall screen in a normal window (unless I hit the "reader view" button in Firefox really quick), but I'm reading things fine in a private window. The link in that thread works fine for me if I open it in a private window.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 09-19-2019 at 09:02 AM.
  #29  
Old 09-19-2019, 09:45 AM
Spiderman's Avatar
Spiderman is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: somewhere East of there
Posts: 10,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
Some effort? I'll grant you that. But "beyond the technical abilities"? Give me fucking break!
There's a reason that consumer-based tech support starts with what should be quite obvious & stupid stuff first - is it plugged in?, is it turned on?, clear your cache., do you know how to clear your cache?, please reboot. for the Level 1 drones that answer your call/chat first. The masses are idiots & going 4 menus down (Firefox) is beyond the technical abilities of a significant portion of the populace unless they are being actively walked thru it by someone & even then some will still have a problem with it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
I'm doing it right now. I get the paywall screen in a normal window (unless I hit the "reader view" button in Firefox really quick), but I'm reading things fine in a private window. The link in that thread works fine for me if I open it in a private window.
I can view the article in Chrome-incognito but not Firefox-incognito. Obviously there's some difference between the the two browser's incognito modes. Is there supposed to be a standard to incognito mode & if so, which one is doing it right?
  #30  
Old 09-19-2019, 09:53 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,357
Thanks to all who mentioned clearing cookies. Here is a link to how do it in Chrome.

As for YouTube clips, to get to the relevant part, here is a site for you to plug in the time where that part starts. Look closely at what this adds to the end of your clip and you can see how to do this without going to the site.
  #31  
Old 09-19-2019, 11:01 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
If itís really import for you to read the original source in a particular instance maybe youíll decide to purchase one-time access. Thatís how it was before the internet after all, only much less convenient.
Actually, before the internet I usually went to the library where I could access a lot of newpapers/journals/magazines at no cost to myself for reference purposes. True, somewhat less convenient.

There are usually ways to get around paywalls for one-time access, alternate sources, etc. Using the sources mentioned is the OP is not the end of the world which is probably why the OP themself marked it as a mild pitting.
  #32  
Old 09-19-2019, 11:02 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
Yeah, unfortunately they're all still stuck on the antiquated 20th century model of subscribing to "the paper" and having the whole thing dropped on your porch. You either subscribe to the whole damn paper or not, even if you don't use 90% of it.
Really? Because I have an entirely electronic subscription to the New York Times, with nothing being dropped on my porch.
  #33  
Old 09-19-2019, 11:10 AM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,404
Can we also agree to only link to videos that don't start with a ad?

I swear, I get ads on about 90% of videos I try to watch on the internet.
  #34  
Old 09-19-2019, 11:24 AM
carrps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 850
I subscribe to the Washington Post online because I fund that I read their articles more than other sites', and they're doing a lot of good reporting. I like to support that.
  #35  
Old 09-19-2019, 11:58 AM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderman View Post
The masses are idiots & going 4 menus down (Firefox) is beyond the technical abilities of a significant portion of the populace unless they are being actively walked thru it by someone & even then some will still have a problem with it.
First, if someone actually WANTS to do it, and is willing to take half a minute to read the instructions, it's really easy to go "4 menus down" and clear your cookies. As I said, if you're not wiling to make that level of effort, you're probably not interested enough to be in the conversation in the first place.

Second, in Firefox you don't have to go "4 levels down."

If you go to, say, the Washington Post, and it tells you that you've used up all your free articles for the month, all you need to do is click on the little "i" in a circle, at the left of the address bar. A drop-down menu will appear, and after about two seconds, at the bottom, you'll see an option to "Clear Cookies and Site Data..." Click on that, and it will clear cookies for the current page without touching any other cookies or browser history. Then refresh the page and, voila, there's your article.

Last edited by mhendo; 09-19-2019 at 11:59 AM.
  #36  
Old 09-19-2019, 12:12 PM
Joey P is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 29,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Can we also agree to only link to videos that don't start with a ad?

I swear, I get ads on about 90% of videos I try to watch on the internet.
That's tough since if you have an adblocker you won't know the ad is there.
  #37  
Old 09-19-2019, 12:19 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
That's tough since if you have an adblocker you won't know the ad is there.
I had no idea an adblocker could disable an embedded ad in a video. That might be what finally motivates me to install one.
  #38  
Old 09-19-2019, 12:24 PM
Joey P is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 29,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
I had no idea an adblocker could disable an embedded ad in a video. That might be what finally motivates me to install one.
It does on youtube. I know I still get ads on my phone, but not on my computers with adblockplus or uBlock installed.
  #39  
Old 09-19-2019, 01:10 PM
Fleetwood's Avatar
Fleetwood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: NH-US
Posts: 1,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
At times I've wondered how much disinformation gets spread to the public on account of the fact that if you look up a story, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the LA Times are all paywalled, but the Washington Times, Breitbart, and Daily Caller aren't.
Because the NYT LAT and WaPo are all unbiased and always print the truth.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/2362125001/
  #40  
Old 09-19-2019, 02:40 PM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleetwood View Post
Because the NYT LAT and WaPo are all unbiased and always print the truth.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/2362125001/
The quality broadsheets certainly fuck up sometimes. No news organization is completely faultless or beyond reproach, and I've seen a number of problematic stories over the years in theNYT and the WaPo and the LAT.

The difference between them and the trash press like Breitbart is that the big newspapers have systems in place to prevent this from happening, and on the occasions when those systems fail, they are also much more willing to make corrections. When was the last time you say Breitbart of Fox News or the Moonie Times correct a lie or take back a trashy piece of sensationalist reporting?

Your own link shows that the Times corrected the story in question. Should the story have been reported accurately and fully the first time? Absolutely. But this qualifies as a bad and unusual stuff-up for the New York Times; for Fox News or Breitbart, it would be just another Tuesday morning.
  #41  
Old 09-19-2019, 03:07 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
The quality broadsheets certainly fuck up sometimes. No news organization is completely faultless or beyond reproach, and I've seen a number of problematic stories over the years in theNYT and the WaPo and the LAT.

The difference between them and the trash press like Breitbart is that the big newspapers have systems in place to prevent this from happening, and on the occasions when those systems fail, they are also much more willing to make corrections. When was the last time you say Breitbart of Fox News or the Moonie Times correct a lie or take back a trashy piece of sensationalist reporting?

Your own link shows that the Times corrected the story in question. Should the story have been reported accurately and fully the first time? Absolutely. But this qualifies as a bad and unusual stuff-up for the New York Times; for Fox News or Breitbart, it would be just another Tuesday morning.
Right, entities like the New York Times and the Washington Post at least aspire to be factual and routinely correct errors. Entities like Fox News and Breitbart are propaganda operations.
  #42  
Old 09-19-2019, 06:13 PM
Charlie Tan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Scania
Posts: 5,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
I disagree. Thereís nothing douchey about the idea that truthful information or valuable content is worth an exchange of value. People should pay for news, especially the news from high-quality news operations.
Bullshit.

And I say this as a person who worked in broadcasting/journalism for close to 25 years before getting out about 15 years ago.

TL;DR to follow

SPOILER:
It's not up to you to decide how people spend their money, and even if NYT and WaPo does better reporting than others mentioned here, they are still a business first and foremost. They are (desperately) trying to monetize their product by doing it the same way they did with the printed edition, back in the day when owning a broadsheet was really the equivalent of having a license to print money.

The old standard model for the printed and subscribed news biz was roughly: subscription paid for the delivery, ads paid for the content and classified was profit. And remember tat the Sunday newspaper you so fondly remember had very little actual news you got a whole package. Life style, culture, travel, sports [albeit a form of news], tv listings, ads. Of say 48 pages, maybe four or fave were what we generally regard as 'news' and those pages had ads as well.

You can still get the paper delivered, but the delivery is getting more and more expensive, as fewer people on that paper route subscribe, but the delivery guy still has to make that whole route. My guess is that traditional subscription operates as a net loss. The classified went online in different forms [craigs list and ebay in the US], but they still sell ads, both online and in the printed edition. The big papers are hurting, the small have been going out of business at an alarming rate.

The music industry, as well as movie and television, have adapted. I'd be happy to pay a monthly fee to a spotify for news, but the way te newspaper industry is working is like asking me to pay $x.xx a month for the artist released by SONY music and $Y.YY for artists released by Universal Music Group.

It's actually up to the newspapers to find a way to monetize their product and make me a happy costumer. Right now, they aren't doing that.

And you, smugly, trying to shame me to pay for their inferior service is, as stated above, bullshit.

/TL;DR

Now what the papers do is one thing. What you as a poster do, here on this message board, is another. One of the first lessons in communication is that all communication should make it as easy as possible for the recipient to receive what you are saying. You can do that by providing links to sites that don't have a pay wall, or to a sites that do have them.

But blaming the recipient for your inability or unwillingness to provide links accessible of everyone is your own loss, because you're not communicating for my convenience. So why should I bother, then?
  #43  
Old 09-19-2019, 06:39 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,231
Not buying it. It’s worth a small amount of some posters’ slight inconvenience to use the best news sources. Especially when that inconvenience is nothing more than registration or limited free use. It even costs you less than going all the way to the library to read a free newspaper. So I’m not going to even try to avoid them. You aren’t owed free of all encumbrances, any more than you would have been in the pre-internet world. You’ll have to be satisfied with brief quotations or paraphrasing. The refusal of a handful of stubborn people who are determined to avoid any effort that supports professional writing is no loss to me.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.

Last edited by Acsenray; 09-19-2019 at 06:42 PM.
  #44  
Old 09-19-2019, 07:17 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Not buying it. Itís worth a small amount of some postersí slight inconvenience to use the best news sources. Especially when that inconvenience is nothing more than registration or limited free use. It even costs you less than going all the way to the library to read a free newspaper. So Iím not going to even try to avoid them. You arenít owed free of all encumbrances, any more than you would have been in the pre-internet world. Youíll have to be satisfied with brief quotations or paraphrasing. The refusal of a handful of stubborn people who are determined to avoid any effort that supports professional writing is no loss to me.
It has nothing to do to being "stubborn", "determined to avoid any effort" or "inconvenience", or feel that I'm "owe" anything.

I, and I'm sure most people, cannot simply subscribe to every single publication out there. (And I'm sure there are people here who MIGHT not be able to afford to do so, and some who are minors and don't have the means to do so?)

I have more than one browser to look at articles that won't allow you to do so with an adblocker.


At any rate, I think it's simply a courtesy to find an alternative. That's all. Saying, "well, you should be willing to pay, it's not MY fault you're too cheap to buy something important" (which is what it sounds like) is pretty snotty and totally misses my point. I see people all the time say, in a thread, "yeah, and get a load of THIS!" and there's very little description, or mention that it's behind a paywall.

No, nobody "owes" anyone anything. That being said, I still think it's kind of, "hey, you mind giving us a heads up if it's yet ANOTHER publication I might have pay for? Or at least do you have an alternative? kthanxbye" (Often times the same article is published elsewhere, or something that says the same basic shit)
  #45  
Old 09-19-2019, 07:18 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
(Or at least, copy and paste the pertinent paragraphs besides providing a link. We'll take your word that it's from there).
Ah, okay. Yeah, I'll always do that--but a failure to include the pertinent paragraphs is itself some bullshit behavior, whether or not the source is paywalled. The link is offered so that folks who are interested can go read more, and also verify that I'm not misquoting/taking out of context what I've quoted.

Washington Post is a magnificent source of information. Refusing to cite it because it's paywalled would be a ridiculous impediment to conversation. But citing it without quoting the relevant paragraphs would be lazy asshole posting anyway.

I can't agree with the OP. But I can agree that folks should always quote the relevant sections of their cites.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 09-19-2019 at 07:19 PM.
  #46  
Old 09-19-2019, 08:20 PM
Taesahnim's Avatar
Taesahnim is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Over there. No, further.
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
I'm probably not the only one who feels this way. Someone posts an article or a link to support an argument, but it's on a website where you have to either sign up to read, or be a paying subscriber. I find that really fucking annoying. Not to mention a lot of times people don't even bother mentioning that there's a paywall.

Some websites, like the WaPo, only let you read so many articles for free, or you have to disable ad blockers.

I don't think there should be a rule about this, just that it's kind of a douchey thing to do. YMMV
I agree, completely.
  #47  
Old 09-19-2019, 08:44 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,231
If someone is talking about a television show or movie do I demand that they give me a free link? No. I decide whether it’s worth my while to pay for it. It’s the same for al content, including news articles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
I, and I'm sure most people, cannot simply subscribe to every single publication out there. (And I'm sure there are people here who MIGHT not be able to afford to do so, and some who are minors and don't have the means to do so?)
Not my point. Sometimes you have to choose whether to pay for access to an original source or rely on someone else’s account of it. Having to make that choice isn’t an injustice. It’s just life.

As I said, it’s just one it was before the internet. Sometimes you can’t get your hands on your own copy of a source. So it’s up to you whether you trust the word of the person paraphrasing or quoting from it.

Quote:
Saying, "well, you should be willing to pay, it's not MY fault you're too cheap to buy something important" (which is what it sounds like) is pretty snotty and totally misses my point.
No, it’s not that you’re too cheap to buy something. It’s that you expect never even to have to make the choice of whether to pay or not. Sometimes in life you are faced with that decision. And on this board what that means is “Do I pay or do I take this poster’s word for what it says and maybe wait for someone else to corroborate.

Quote:
I see people all the time say, in a thread, "yeah, and get a load of THIS!" and there's very little description,
Any link, regardless of content, should be accompanied by sufficient information to convey sufficient understanding of what’s behind it. No links should be blind.

But that’s not a reason to avoid citing to stories from the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, it any other major news source based on whether there’s a paywall or registration required or limited free articles.

Those kinds of sources are too important to even make an effort to avoid. And their paywalls shouldn’t be avoided. People should be faced with their content occasionally because sometimes someone will decide its worth their while to pay. Giving people the opportunity to pay for good journalism is a good thing.

(And let me be clear about this—free registration is not any kind of unreasonable impediment, neither is an anti-adblock wall or a five articles free limit. If that’s too much for you take, I have zero sympathy. When it comes to a full-on paywall then I decide whether it’s worth my while to pay or not. That’s not the problem of the person making a citation.)
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.

Last edited by Acsenray; 09-19-2019 at 08:49 PM.
  #48  
Old 09-19-2019, 09:28 PM
cochrane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Nekkid Pueblo
Posts: 22,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
I disagree. There’s nothing douchey about the idea that truthful information or valuable content is worth an exchange of value. People should pay for news, especially the news from high-quality news operations.

And if the source is actually offering content for merely signing up, and not charging money, then there’s no issue. If you want the information, then just sign up. It’s not douchey to link to it. If signing up is somehow beyond your capacity, that’s on you.

People should become accustomed to the idea that professionals producing news need to be paid. An occasional reminder of that from a link to a paywalled article—or even a limited free offer—is a good thing.
Bullshit. If you're going to link to a paywalled article, don't bother. If you do, I'll remember, and Google up an alternate source.

ETA - "Bullshit" also applies to your other six posts, above.

Last edited by cochrane; 09-19-2019 at 09:31 PM.
  #49  
Old 09-19-2019, 09:33 PM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 28,928
Here's a question for all those reading this; what are some good non-paywalled sources? The first two that come to mind are The Guardian (although they have a bit at the end of the articles pleading for a contribution) and Wikipedia.

Can you think of any other sources?
  #50  
Old 09-19-2019, 09:49 PM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
Here's a question for all those reading this; what are some good non-paywalled sources? The first two that come to mind are The Guardian (although they have a bit at the end of the articles pleading for a contribution) and Wikipedia.

Can you think of any other sources?
I agree about The Guardian. It was one of the ones I listed in post #26, along with some others.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017