Still would not change the fact that I literally cannot afford it. But I guess being informed about what is happening in the world is not something poor people should be entitled to.
I don’t know anything about your situation, and I truly don’t need details, but if you think you can’t afford access to any news outlet, I don’t think you’re trying hard enough.
Since you’re apparently too poor to access any way to entertain or inform yourself, I’m guessing you’ve had ample time to mull over solutions to this problem, and I’m eager to learn what an ideal solution would look like from your perspective.
Are you cool with paying for your news in exchange for your data/ads? Is there part of the editorial process we could remove to save money? Maybe we don’t need fact checkers and should just assume that journalists know what they’re talking about?
I’m not sure how we simultaneously provide free journalism and ensure that those journalists have enough to eat themselves, but I share in your convictions that democratizing information is imperative.
From where I sit, it seems like news organizations have moved away from showing ads for revenue to some extent, so the only option we have is to include news in our monthly budget and support journalists as much as we can.
Still would not change the fact that I literally cannot afford it. But I guess being informed about what is happening in the world is not something poor people should be entitled to.
Nonsense. Newspapers have always come with a price tag. Nothing special about that.
“Nonsense.” He says, before agreeing with my statement. 🤡
I don’t know anything about your situation, and I truly don’t need details, but if you think you can’t afford access to any news outlet, I don’t think you’re trying hard enough.
Since you’re apparently too poor to access any way to entertain or inform yourself, I’m guessing you’ve had ample time to mull over solutions to this problem, and I’m eager to learn what an ideal solution would look like from your perspective.
Are you cool with paying for your news in exchange for your data/ads? Is there part of the editorial process we could remove to save money? Maybe we don’t need fact checkers and should just assume that journalists know what they’re talking about?
I’m not sure how we simultaneously provide free journalism and ensure that those journalists have enough to eat themselves, but I share in your convictions that democratizing information is imperative.
From where I sit, it seems like news organizations have moved away from showing ads for revenue to some extent, so the only option we have is to include news in our monthly budget and support journalists as much as we can.