Shrinking number of free news outlets
We've had discussions around here before about where we get our news, and one of mine has been The BBC. I've used them as an occasional source for several years now. It seems that today (Nov 15th) marks a shift in their policy regarding access to their online site. BBC.com is no longer readable for free. I can look at their headlines, but as soon as I try to read an article, a subscribe pop-up appears, and there is no way around it. Archive sites will still have the articles, yes, but that is a different subject entirely.
As far as I'm concerned, that drops them from my list of news sources. I have tentatively replaced them with Reuters, which is visually clunky, but still free. The AP site, PBS and National Public Radio are other sites I frequent. For a British viewpoint, I'm also trying out The Guardian, which bombards me with SUBSCRIBE notices, but those can still be zapped out of sight.
Are there any other obvious sites I haven't mentioned? Not interested in right-wing propaganda by the way and I find most of the major American networks intolerable.
I feel that at some point it becomes worth it to simply pay for news if you care about getting high quality, unbiased reporting. Journalism is a relatively new profession all things considered, and free journalism is an incredibly new thing, and I don't think it's sustainable unfortunately, though I wish it were the case. High quality reporting is a costly thing, and when the product is being given out for free then one has to question where the money is coming from, because if it's not coming from the readers then it's likely coming at least in part from sources that have a vested interest in what the news reports. I'm all for frugality, especially in the world we live in today, but a subscription to a decent news site just isn't that expensive for most westerners.
That being said, I would say that paying for news is worth it, but it just seems that anything behind a paywall is just as biased as anything else. Ping it on the adftonesmedia.com site, but... there is no unbiased anything these days.
All news is biased news, of course, but in today's media landscape it's more often than not a tossup between "reports the news" and "spouts propaganda on behalf of their benefactors" with an unfortunately small amount of grey area in between. And if you want your propaganda to reach as wide an audience as possible, of course you'll publish it for free. That doesn't mean that all free news sources are untrustworthy, or that all paid sources are trustworthy, but it's a factor to consider, I think. There's no such thing as a free lunch. I don't consume the news too much these days on account of the enormous mental strain I experience from being constantly reminded of how I'm living through the collapse of civilisation and the climate apocalypse, but I've found that, if nothing else, paid, reputable sources at least try harder to report "proper" news. But of course it's best to get news from multiple sources to account for inevitable biases in all of them.
Additionally, I generally like giving my dollar to things I support on principle, when I can afford it at least. I use Wikipedia a ton and support its mission, so when I can I'll buy them a cup of coffee or two. I try to buy at local businesses as much as I can, I don't buy from Amazon, I pay for Google product alternatives, stuff like that. I extend that same thinking to paying for news; if it's something I utilise regularly, then I think there's no reason why I couldn't throw $2-3 their way every month if I can. I'm not well-off by any means, but by the privlege of living in a rich Western country, I am fortunate enough to be able to align my spending with my principles somewhat.
Hmm, I had no idea BBC had added a paywall, but apparently they only implemented it for US viewers in June. It doesn't sound like there are plans to roll it out anywhere else though, thankfully.
Uhm, what? Unless something recently changed, Reuters has had a worldwide metered paywall since Oct of last year. Are you sure you just haven't hit your free article viewing limit for the month yet?
BTW, might I also suggest the CBC.ca as an alternative to the BBC. Much like the BBC is for the UK, CBC is our government funded public-service broadcaster up here in Canada, but it's still entirely paywall free AFAIK. And similarly, there is also ABC.net.au (Australian Broadcast Corporation, not the .com US network) as well.
It is entirely possible that I could hit a limit on articles at Reuters, since I've just started with them today. There is no indication that there is any limit for me at this point. Two buttons at the top right of the site, for Signing in and Registering, support your statement however, and I'll soon know if they put a limit on my access. If so, I'll drop them like a hot rock too.
I'll take a look at CBC.ca and ABC.net.au. Thanks for those suggestions.
Pro Publica is very good, and they only report on their own journalism. You will not find them reposting news wire stories.
Even though they are free, I think it's worth funding high-quality journalism like theirs.
I tend to only visit local news sites regularly however I have frequently noticed higher quality articles from Arstechnica. While it's generally just tech focused it's one of the few sites I might consider subscribing to if I had the budget for it.