NPR* has literally saved some of my family from going completely batshit as the only other options in some areas is the bat shit right wing talk radio.
That happens anyway because line go up. Don’t pretend that media stays “independent” if it gets enough funding from viewers directly. Even if it’s from advertisers, they use that buying power to influence editorial decisions. But they’ll still take oligarch money if it’s backed up to their doorstep.
Edit: maybe the Guardian is the exception, but they still toe the line on many issues.
Serious question, where is reliable information supposed to come from if we as readers
A: refuse to pay for news services
B: refuse to consume advertising as an alternative
Because that leaves
C: external funding by media conglomerates and political groups
public funding?
incoherent screeching about xyz media outlet being a government mouthpiece
We have NPR in the US, so that’s something at least
NPR* has literally saved some of my family from going completely batshit as the only other options in some areas is the bat shit right wing talk radio.
It’s a hard balance I agree. If advertisements weren’t so unusable on pages I’d be inclined to leave my ad block off.
I pay for news before because I support having a well written journalism. But not everyone has that luxury.
Journalism is expensive. But I don’t know if parasitic ads are the answer. I don’t want to compromise my privacy to read news.
If someone can Crack that nut and come up with a 3rd option they’ll laugh their way to the bank.
That happens anyway because line go up. Don’t pretend that media stays “independent” if it gets enough funding from viewers directly. Even if it’s from advertisers, they use that buying power to influence editorial decisions. But they’ll still take oligarch money if it’s backed up to their doorstep.
Edit: maybe the Guardian is the exception, but they still toe the line on many issues.
Reuters and AP.