Hoping that discussion here will help me clarify my own thinking on this.
I read The Guardian online pretty much every day. Access is free but a begging request appears with most articles asking for donations so that the paper can continue its business model of being free.
I can afford to make a donation/subscribe. And if they started charging everyone, I would pay quite happily as I value the product.
What I have a problem with is begging for contributions in order to sustain some kind of anti-capitalist argument. I think they should charge and I want them to charge. And if they can’t sustain themselves without charging they should re-think their approach.
Am I over-thinking this? Am I being selfish?
Do any of you contribute or object to contributing for similar reasons?
Comments
But I'm fairly sure you're overthinking it.
FWIW if I wanted to pay for news I'd be looking at the Times. Or anything where the comments sections aren't populated by rabid idiots (does such a thing exist?!)
http://www.mediareform.org.uk/blog/new-mrc-research-finds-inaccuracies-and-distortions-in-media-coverage-of-antisemitism-and-the-labour-party
"The research examined over 250 articles and broadcast news segments and found over 90 examples of misleading or inaccurate reporting. In relation to the IHRA definition of antisemitism that was at the heart of the dispute, the research found evidence of "overwhelming source inbalance" in which critics of Labour’s code of conduct dominated coverage, with nearly 50% of Guardian reports, for example, failing to include any quotes from those defending the code or critiquing the IHRA definition. Moreover, key contextual facts about the IHRA definition – for example that it has only been formally adopted by eight countries (and only six of the IHRA member states) – were consistently excluded."
I stick with the Beeb to be honest. I don't like everything about their news coverage but I'm just used to the interface and they don't make me feel like they are stealing from them.
I have occasionally given money to the Guardian, but I don't have a subscription. I feel I should do something to support one of the better sources of journalism, but I'm not uncritical of them either.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
I am not sure what the argument / objection is.
Anti-capitalist* ideas must only allowed if they are financially self-supporting. Seems like a argument FOR capitalism?
*the Guardian isn't anti-capitalist.
when it comes to inaccuracies and bias The Guardian is pretty close to the top of the pile.
I support the Guardian, I bought the paper daily for 20 years and now never do so I'm quids in paying this way. It is really the best option if you want it to survive, which I do. The other options are intrusive adverting or a paywall which would both be a much worse outcome.