Back to Boards

What is wrong with people?


What is wrong with people?

I am reading an article about the bombing in Pakistan and it says " One of the 1st US casualties to be identified is Rylee McCollum a link so I click on it to see the Soldier, and it takes me to a place that tells me if I want to read the article subscribe to the NY times?

So they use a dead Marine to sell papers?? How low can we go? If they let me read the article and had the sales Pitch at the end I would have no issue

Re: What is wrong with people?

Nothing new about that. All of them do it sell papers. The newspaper industry is in trouble with rising costs. Many have been lost. That doesn't justify what they do to sruvice. They can't give away their product. Nobody can. The Times is not the only source of news;any story you want is available elsewhere for free on some of the major outlets. You can still get the news you want

Re: Re: What is wrong with people?

You miss the point- I WAS getting my news for free, an article at MSN for them to tie it to a Dead Marine is disgusting- The prompt leads you to believe they are going to give you some info about the casualty, not a link to a sales pitch

Re: What is wrong with people?

MSN is not a news agency. They syndicate and repackage news from other sources. It sounds like the original article you read came from the NY Times and so the links within the article went back to their site .. and yes most of the content on their site requires a subscription.

It is not like a person created this page and article by hand with the aim of getting you to subscribe.

Re: Re: What is wrong with people?

Unfortunately, a vast majority of "real, legitimate" articles are all behind paywalls now. Everything else is for click bait and some of it is good, but a lot of it is bad and biased.

Re: What is wrong with people?

Honestly, it started about 40 yrs ago.
It's called infotainment, and like so many other aspects of society the distinctions are blurred to the point of eradication.

Re: What is wrong with people?

uh sorry mark but your obfuscation-by-parsing misses the point - sin properly called out the shameless exploitation by the NYT

Re: Re: What is wrong with people?

Presuming the NYT does (or should) have a process in place to put certain pages outside their paywall, that certainly would have been a nice one to put outside the paywall.

Re: What is wrong with people?

It's not really using the bombing to get subscribers. I do believe NYT, Washing post and where I live San Diego Union, they allow you to view not sure exact number maybe 3-4 articles before you start seeing the "must be a subscribers".

Somewhere you used your free views, most of us have without even knowing it, and since you weren't a subscriber, you saw that page. .

Re: Re: What is wrong with people?

A lot of papers use the limit system and tell you when you have reached the limit. If they didn't,there would be no reason to subscribe. They don't care what the story is about,just that people want to read it. Try using websites of broadcast stations. On the internet,they don't have to worry about time limits and will give more details than they can on the air. Infotainment is the father of fake news

Re: What is wrong with people?

I get how it is immoral, but there is a way to get past paywalls to anyone who doesn’t know, watch this video.

https://youtu.be/PqcjqhV9-K0

Re: Re: What is wrong with people?

naplajoie .. agree to disagree. Go out and buy a copy of the paper if you want everything. I wish the newspapers would figure out a way to sell access under one bundle/price but I have no issue with them wanting to be paid to read their content.

Re: What is wrong with people?

Think of it this way, an article is put out for you to read about a car accident, in the article it says the victim is John Smith of where ever, USA with the name being a link- one would automatically think that the link is there to provide you more info about the victim, someone who knew him might be interested to see how they are described and click on that link, others might say they didn't know that person and elect not to click on the link.

Regardless an article is released that appears to be free content, if that link wasn't inserted into the article my the Company wanting to sell something but doing so in a sneaky way, there would be no issue, they solicited me- I wasn't trying to get something for free from them that I didn't think was not free,

If I knew it was a pay to read article I wouldn't have clicked on it in the 1st place, don't use dead military personnel to sell newspapers.

Re: Re: What is wrong with people?

That is not what is happening.

The NY Times published an article to their site. To read the article (or any of the links in the article) you have to be a subscriber.

Sites like MSN and Huffington Post just scrape articles from other news sources and publish them on their sites for free. Presumably they pay The NY Times something to do this, but I do not know. Anyway, this is the article you read. The links in the article they scraped were not changed though so they are still linking back to The NY Times which always was only showing the content to their subscribers.

The problem is that MSN leaves the links in the articles they buy .. maybe it is part of their deal, maybe they are lazy. Regardless, no one is specifically seeking to monetize the soldiers name. It is just the sloppiness of the Internet we live with today.

Re: What is wrong with people?

MARK is completely right--and I'm a writer with 2 master's degrees who majored in Mass Communications as an undergrad.
Here's my question: if a paywall exception should be made for a "dead marine," which information is ethically OK to have behind a paywall?
A story about victims of lead poisoning? A story about a murder? A story about car theft? A story about an organized crime outfit?
Flood victims? What about information about government graft? Are you telling me I have to PAY to find out about important information that citizens should have? Down with capitalism is what you're saying.

If your argument is that if there's a victim of something, that person is being exploited by the concept of a paywall, you're basically arguing against a paywall to begin with.

Are you arguing against papers selling at the gas station for fifty cents? Is a picture of a car crash put there to sell papers? In newsrooms, they have constant debates about whether or not to show a body bag or a stretcher with a body on it--you don't see bloodied corpses on the front page or bodies of ppl who have committed suicide on the cement, even if the photos may exist.
Now, it's true that the "if it bleeds it leads" maxim is true enough--I could imagine newspapers in which the content were quite different. There are dozens of major problems with editorial decisions.

But you seem to be saying that you should be able to get some sort of human interest story you want about a marine and that it's good for them to write about him, but unethical for there to be a way for them to pay the bills when that article exists. Before the internet YOU WOULD NOT have seen that information without buying the paper, and it's much less expensive to subscribe for home delivery, which is how most people used to get their news.

Again, MARK is right about the logistics--they linked to a piece they have --a piece you've said you wanted to read--and because you are not a subscriber, you hit the paywall. Had you not used your 5 free articles, you would have read about "a dead marine" that was linked to and apparently that would be OK. You wouldn't have batted an eye.

One last thing. One of the most popular hobbies in the last forty years has been media bashing. The media should be not only criticized but reformed. And in some cases new news organizations come along all the time that right some old wrongs.
However, people who have no media savvy and cannot correctly use terms like "bias" and "infotainment" and certainly "fake news" clutter up the internet with utterly ridiculous accusations and criticisms. There is plenty wrong with the media (itself a hopelessly vague term) but making them a constant bogeyman often just clutters up the idea-o-sphere.

Re: Re: What is wrong with people?

I was a radio newsman for ten years so I don't need any lectures. Infotainment,satire,editorials are all OK so long as they are clearly labeled as such. Blending them is a disservice;if feeds ignorance and confusion. One of the things we used to despise when hiring was those who went to broadcast school . All they learned were a bunch of bad habits and we had to retrain them. Most of the time we couldn't . Granted, the business has changed over the years as everything does. In my day,admittedly a very long time ago,news meant facts. It meant what you knew for certain. Your personal opinion was irrelevant so it was kept out of the story. We had ethics,a responsibility to report the truth to the extent that was possible. Many editorial boards and reporters today seem to believe "it's all about me. " I became a state recognized reporter because my employer saw in me a lot of raw talent and spent a lot of money training me. They could have hired someone more experienced to hit the ground running but they didn't and never regretted that decision. They were not the type to spend money,either. Every outlet has their own way of doing things and that is the way it's supposed to me,I guess. Does no harm. I am not inclined to debate the issue further. I rest my case.

Re: What is wrong with people?

I should add I wouldn't survive in today's media climate. We do have to survive by fitting in with what could be low standards of an employers. Since leaving as a professional I have always written on a volunteer basis and wouldn't have it any other way. The passion for writing never leaves once you have it. The difference is it's not just a job although I always enjoyed it anyway. Very few demands were made on me because I wasn't broke and didn't need to be fixed