The Guardian just advised me that their new subscription is $120/year. They friggin' doubled it. I had to talk that over with my wife, and she kind of shrugged - "Actually, I think we are BOTH subscribing to The Guardian". Basically, we like it so much we're voluntarily overpaying, and not flinching at the doubling our cost for news. Bec…
The Guardian just advised me that their new subscription is $120/year. They friggin' doubled it. I had to talk that over with my wife, and she kind of shrugged - "Actually, I think we are BOTH subscribing to The Guardian". Basically, we like it so much we're voluntarily overpaying, and not flinching at the doubling our cost for news. Because we TRUST it.
Arwa Madhawi today put out her second in two days on Gaza, and on American coverage just ignoring genocidal statements towards Palestinian protesters. (And by "genocidal statements", I don't mean a chant, I mean it was ' “Yes I do, I support genocide,” the officer said, after a protester accused him of this at a graduation event at the College of Staten Island, part of the public City University of New York (Cuny) system, last Thursday. “I support killing all you guys, how about that?” ' )
Didn't make The Times. Had to read about New York in a British newspaper that hired a Brown person. After my recent substack experience, I can't imagine trusting a news source that was anything BUT paid by the readers. And The Guardian. The only one not owned by a rich family, oddly enough.
I've got no idea how these papers that exist only to make money are supposed to ever earn anybody's trust, and be a news source rather than an entertainment product. Everybody seems to want to call themselves journalism, provide entertainment that maximizes income. That business model has been nailed down, Fox makes vast sums. All you can do is compete around the edges, and in any event, not a fit topic for a real journalist like Ling, because it's not journalism, it's beneath him.
Just keep doing this, Justin; this is the future of journalism, if not entertainment; advertising was always bad for journalism since my uncle ran The Drumheller Mail in the sixties. It could only carry good news about local business! Substack is much better.
The Guardian is such a gem. It probably didn't come across, but they went through some real internal chaos over the last decade — and they sorted it out, and have improved themselves. It's an outlet that seems keen on getting better, not just maintaining. There's some outlets that are really (small-c) conservative in their outlook. The Times being a prime example.
I think we're eventually going to hit on a revenue model that doesn't require 0.5% of the population paying to sustain everyone's media ecosystem. I'm hoping Substack is going to help figure that out but, also, I'm growing increasingly bored thinking about how to get there — because I can't help but feel like the big-money investors are more inclined to listen to Vivek.
The Guardian just advised me that their new subscription is $120/year. They friggin' doubled it. I had to talk that over with my wife, and she kind of shrugged - "Actually, I think we are BOTH subscribing to The Guardian". Basically, we like it so much we're voluntarily overpaying, and not flinching at the doubling our cost for news. Because we TRUST it.
Arwa Madhawi today put out her second in two days on Gaza, and on American coverage just ignoring genocidal statements towards Palestinian protesters. (And by "genocidal statements", I don't mean a chant, I mean it was ' “Yes I do, I support genocide,” the officer said, after a protester accused him of this at a graduation event at the College of Staten Island, part of the public City University of New York (Cuny) system, last Thursday. “I support killing all you guys, how about that?” ' )
Didn't make The Times. Had to read about New York in a British newspaper that hired a Brown person. After my recent substack experience, I can't imagine trusting a news source that was anything BUT paid by the readers. And The Guardian. The only one not owned by a rich family, oddly enough.
I've got no idea how these papers that exist only to make money are supposed to ever earn anybody's trust, and be a news source rather than an entertainment product. Everybody seems to want to call themselves journalism, provide entertainment that maximizes income. That business model has been nailed down, Fox makes vast sums. All you can do is compete around the edges, and in any event, not a fit topic for a real journalist like Ling, because it's not journalism, it's beneath him.
Just keep doing this, Justin; this is the future of journalism, if not entertainment; advertising was always bad for journalism since my uncle ran The Drumheller Mail in the sixties. It could only carry good news about local business! Substack is much better.
The Guardian is such a gem. It probably didn't come across, but they went through some real internal chaos over the last decade — and they sorted it out, and have improved themselves. It's an outlet that seems keen on getting better, not just maintaining. There's some outlets that are really (small-c) conservative in their outlook. The Times being a prime example.
I think we're eventually going to hit on a revenue model that doesn't require 0.5% of the population paying to sustain everyone's media ecosystem. I'm hoping Substack is going to help figure that out but, also, I'm growing increasingly bored thinking about how to get there — because I can't help but feel like the big-money investors are more inclined to listen to Vivek.
Ah well. (And thanks, as always!)