Funny article “Open Thread: There’s No Such Thing As Free Content”

Hah, funny article. It’s the usual rant that “someone” has to pay for the content.

Someone, somewhere ends up putting out money for everything you do online, every piece of news you read, every Web app you use. It takes professionals and hardware across a gigantic industry to make these things work. In terms of overhead alone, content costs a lot. So why do some users always kick and scream at the first suggestion of paid content? Do you think content is worth paying for, and if so, what are you personally willing to pay?

I’m curious: What kinds of online content, if any, are you willing to pay for? And how much will you pay for them?

As usual for the stenographers they completely missed the point. They are no longer king of the data hill since the “journalists” do not provide information ( actionable data ) but merely (and usually inaccurate) data with no competent interpretation.

Some of the problems with the “content” MSM media produces:

  1. Inaccurate: It is extraordinarily rare to find a Main-stream Media outlet that can get the facts correct. I have seen articles confuse the term “Light-Rail” with “High-Speed Rail” ( equivalent to confusing “speed of sound” with “speed of light” ).
  2. Anonymous (gossip) sources: Reading anything about politics is equally painful “anonymous sources” are quoted, given reader no way to judge the quality of the information – so the article becomes disguised hearsay.
  3. Stenographers: Usually, a “journalist” lazily parrots a political party’s (usually Republican ) talking points or regurgitates a corporate press release. Witness the rah-rah-rahing of the Iraq War.
  4. Contrived controversies: There is the endless contrived controversies around settled issues ( global warming ) that confuse the lay man.
  5. False Balance: there is false “journalistic” balance where a scientist with a vast amount of data is “balanced” against the latest creationist whack-job.
  6. DWHC: Lastly come the endless pieces about the latest DWHC ( Dead white hot chick ) or rumors about Micheal Jackson’s death. Yes, people are interested in hearing about celebrity gossip, put it is mental cotton candy – low food value.
  7. Not unique: the article on the AP wire as little value. The same article can be gotten from a vast array of sources. Therefore its scarcity and value are non-existent to a given media outlet.
  8. Process-orientated: Case in point: Horse race mentality around what polls are saying about who is “in the lead”.

So why would I pay for “content” stenographic, celebrity gossip articles.

If journalists stopped being lazy and did more research than half-understood wikipedia articles and google-reading, it would be worth it to buy their content. But buy stenographic contact in advance, not a chance.

However, I would very much like to see a tip mechanism whereby I can tip a reporter after reading the article. But I ain’t paying for the crap fluff pieces. Hell you should pay ME that you wasted my time.

This entry was posted in entertainment, political. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *