= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Open thread, September 8-14, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (295)
There would definitely be more paywalls. The question is whether it would be a net loss.
Would the quality of information be better? Advertising gets paid for one way or another-- would no-advertising news (possibly even no-advertising media in general) be a net financial loss for consumers?
Look at the history of cable TV. When it appeared it was also promoted as "no advertising, better shows".
I would argue for the existence of a treadmill effect on these things.
Although this may not have been true at the beginning, it arguably did grow to meet that standard. Cable TV is still fairly young in the grand scheme of things, though, so I would say there isn't enough information yet to conclude whether a TV paywall improved content overall.
Also, it's important to remember that TV relies on the data-weak and fairly inaccurate Nielsen ratings in order to understand its demographics and what they like (and it's even weaker and more inaccurate for pay cable). This leads to generally conservative decisions regarding programing. The internet, on the other hand, is filled with as much data as you wish to pull out regarding the people who use your site, on both a broad and granular level. This allows freedom to take more extreme changes of direction, because there's a feeling that the risk is lower. So the two groups really aren't on the same playing field, and their motivations for improving/shifting content potentially come from different directions.
Yes I think so because journalism is time-consuming and expensive. You also have to have the right people on the right stories so that you get the best expression of what happened. Then you can back that up with commentary and opinion which in this day and age tends to end up all at once. I think the better option is to believe in people and their unique perspective. If you follow a writer or a journalist and you like their work that is a better system than believing in an institution which is more faceless. If I am covering a story on an oil spill in the gulf on The Cameron Cowan Show and then I take an ad from BP my viewers are going to wonder if I an going to continue to cover the spill with such tenacity and they will flee from me if I don't. People can vote with their feet and dollars with individuals far more than companies. Ergo, I would not take that ad to keep my loyal watchers and seek ads somewhere else. This logic is not used at any news outlet right now because bills have to be paid and there is far less backlash.