0
0

[–] Ghetto_Shitlord ago 

It matters to my wallet and free information. Option 1 gives corps too much power, and option 3 I can't afford. Option 2 will work if we can get "clean" ads. I don't mind ads alone in the slightest, but the tracking bullshit is a no go. Ads pay for what you like but won't pay for. Newspapers would have never got off the ground wiyh out ads, same for OTA TV. They in of themselves aren't evil, its how they are used...

0
0

[–] SteelKidney ago 

But again, ad revenue is a major cause of the problem of misleading/slanted information available in any "news" media- TV, Radio, print, or web. Ads pay more when more people look at them. It's why Super Bowl ads are so expensive. If, for example, USA Today is to maintain ad revenue then they have to keep people reading their paper or site. And the best way to get eyes on the content isn't factual reporting of meaningful events.

So it becomes about whipping up drama. Scandals that are really a lot less dire than they're made out to be. Scare tactic headlines above articles with lots of claims and no proof or even real supporting evidence. It's all about telling people what they already want to hear so that they continue consuming so that the ads pay more.

Viewership-based revenue doesn't lead to quality news. It leads to gimmicks designed to get viewers.

0
0

[–] Ghetto_Shitlord ago 

Well, so you're willing to pay then?