JasonSJackson
Jah Sun Ma'at Ra
or any other "news" source be able to charge for access to that news if it isnt also reported for free somewhere else???
Should the Wall street journal........
- Thread starter JasonSJackson
- Start date
Domingo Halliburton
Handmade in USA
You never bought a paper?
JasonSJackson
Jah Sun Ma'at Ra
whens the last time youve bought one?
Domingo Halliburton
Handmade in USA
probably a couple years ago I get the ny times and wall street journal for free at my work.
I don't understand the premise of your thread though
JasonSJackson
Jah Sun Ma'at Ra
Most online news outlets are available for free, as i feel they should be. The wall street journal is not. Those cocksuckers actually pad lock their information (information that is not available on any of the other news outlets) to attempt to block any unpaid users from reading their articles . My question is, should any company be able to monopolize the news in the manner the wall street journal does or should there always be a free alternate available for everyone?
Domingo Halliburton
Handmade in USA
aww gotcha. well there's plenty of free financial and business news out there. check out bloomberg. wall street journal's editorials are trash. I do like the journal though.
ill
Superstar
Like Domingo said there are other sources for free info. WSJ pays analysts to run numbers and uncover stories. If they give it all away for free than what is their incentive to stay in business? If the information can be readily available elsewhere for free, then I agree, they shouldn't charge for that content. If its original work, then get paid my dudes. Do you work for free?
JasonSJackson
Jah Sun Ma'at Ra
Like I said, there are not other sources, free or not, for alot of the stories they post.
By your logic u r perfectly fine with not having access to certain information about things that happen in the world, no matter how important, if the outlet u use for news is unable to afford to cover the stories.
Last edited:
ill
Superstar
Get a job
This shyt isn't all that expensive. If you aren't in finance then you don't need the WSJ either way and if you are in finance, then you can afford the WSJ and/or your employer provides it for you. If they are the only source for a certain topic, then yeah, you have to pay them for that information. If I worked 40 hours this week on an article that only I bring to market, then fukk yeah you pay me. By your logic you should be cleaning my bathrooms daily..for free....
JasonSJackson
Jah Sun Ma'at Ra
Get a job
Another dumb nikka that thinks he's smart.....sigh smh
What you're failing to grasp from what I said is the fact that by allowing a news source to have a monopoly on information u allow them to control that information and who can and cannot have access to it.
Your 'it's not that expensive' line of arguing is relative and dumb. Suppose they decided to charge 1000.00 a month for the information....which they very well could.....would u still be singing that 'it's not that expensive' tune? No, u wouldn't but someone with more money could and would.
Does the fact that the paper is no longer financially feasible for ur budget in this situation mean that u shouldn't have access to the information it contains?
This is my point, by allowing this company to charge a fee for information that is not available elsewhere u are allowing it to control who can and cannot have access to the information it contains.
People should not have to choose ignorance simply because they can not afford to pay the fees associated with a particular news source.
Last edited:
Bernie Madoff
Banned
Smfh
Bernie Madoff
Banned
I seriously hope your trolling with this thread...
NZA
LOL
monopoly seems like a poorly used word, though i am sympathetic to the struggle, you have to pay for things that are expensive to produce
actual investigative reporting costs money, that's why most news has become opinion instead of investigation. since these are not government institutions, they have to be allowed to find a way to monetize what they do, or they simply will not do it. you can go from a pay wall to no investigation or informed analysis at all. that, of course, is a net reduction. the whole point should be to find ways to increase the impact of news on society. come up with a new way to monetize before you take away the current one.
now personally, i think if somebody is that broke, financial news is not even a priority
actual investigative reporting costs money, that's why most news has become opinion instead of investigation. since these are not government institutions, they have to be allowed to find a way to monetize what they do, or they simply will not do it. you can go from a pay wall to no investigation or informed analysis at all. that, of course, is a net reduction. the whole point should be to find ways to increase the impact of news on society. come up with a new way to monetize before you take away the current one.
now personally, i think if somebody is that broke, financial news is not even a priority
just regoogle the article...
this is my opinion.
i think they charge because they can. i don't think their income doesn't depend on subscription. it's advertising. just like tv.
with the internet now news moves fast so one doesn't have to subscribe it them. but if i were into finance i'd try it for a year to see whether i'd really need it.
i think they charge because they can. i don't think their income doesn't depend on subscription. it's advertising. just like tv.
with the internet now news moves fast so one doesn't have to subscribe it them. but if i were into finance i'd try it for a year to see whether i'd really need it.