I also fondly remember when Detroit's papers consistently offered journalism worth reading, but those days are long gone. How Tribune Publishing, The Guardian, and Slate tackled reader revenue by valuing their journalism moreĮxclusive podcasts, tightened paywalls, and just plain asking each played a part. Guardian Media Group announces outcome of three year turnaround strategyĭetroit's newspapers should pay attention to how did they did it. The just announced their first operating profit since 1988. I pay for content that is worth it two ways: worth my money and worth my time. I am happy to pay for content that is worth it to me, and I do. I will never subscribe to any site that throws up a paywall. I will NEVER pay for content on any website. Today, I can hit five or more different 'news' websites and read exactly the same story, word for word, mistake for mistake. They didn't copy and paste off a link they clicked. If you read three different papers [[which there were back then), you got details in three different ways because the reporters wrote their own stories. That was when there were real reporters who went to incident scenes and gathered information first hand by talking to witnesses and officials.
#Detroit free press subscription tv
At least with TV news, I could find out about things that happened today, then read about them in more detail tomorrow.īut notice, I said 'more detail'. Remember, everything in a printed newspaper happened yesterday. I paid for the convenience of home delivery. I consider news to be a public service, supported by advertisers. I don't consider that I've ever paid for the news content. I want to know what it would take for readers to pay for content. Investing in papers means the ability to hire more and to lessen the workload. That's not to excuse the mistakes, because we don't like making them, but you have to understand that there are less of us now to catch those mistakes. Those jobs have been slashed by the hundreds over the course of the past 10 year. It's not reporters, it's the lack of copy editors. Reporters today have gotten very lazy and that does not apply strictly to print media. " But nowhere beforehand does the article identify who "Johnson" is. Also, I often see quotes from people who are not identified in the article, such as ". I also read stories that are not at all cohesive. I read both papers, almost cover to cover, every day and every day I see countless grammar and spelling errors that a fourth grader would know not to make. Last edited by Atticus May-06-19 at 12:38 PM.Ī good start to putting out a good product would be actual spelling and grammar checking, and I do not mean merely hitting F7 on the keyboard. because I want to understand their perspective. I will pay for journalism that covers all sides, particularly the side I don’t agree with. But the journalist these days are lazy, and think they have checked their fair and balanced box by providing the “no comment from other side” line. When it is in the defense’s legal best interest to not comment [[which is regularly the case), the journalist should take the time to contact other subject matter experts and present the story from the defense’s likely perspective, even if the defense themselves can’t comment.
Then they will throw in a quick one liner of, “we reached out to [[the other side), and the other side responded they can’t/don’t/won’t comment on pending litigation.” Most of the articles written in the Freep/DetNews are click drawing material, and not informative from all sides.Ī regular classic example of poor Freep/DetNews “journalism” is they will often write a story about a pending lawsuit, and provide a bunch of comments from one side that may or may not be sensationalized.
Even though it is a business journal, I get better journalistic coverage of the region from them in pretty much every relevant subject matter. I will happily pay for it, however, what we are getting from both of our 2 formally fine news sourses, is not journalism.Īgreed.
0 kommentar(er)
