Younger generations need to pay for news. Local news is important for democracy since local news feeds alerts national news.
Ad networks by providing news for free is destroying democracy.
Ad networks by providing news for free is destroying democracy.
Add it to the list of things that younger generations are somehow required to purchase.
https://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-are-killing-list...
In contrast, pensioners have more than enough free time to read the news and vote - as evidenced by just about every voter turnout statistic.
Want to fix politics? Make it possible for young people to actually engage with democracy again.
Not with that attitude. I'm reading a newspaper since I was 14. If they don't make time to read a newspaper, they're just not interested. Don't try to sugarcoat it with some pointless victimization.
If so, how can that affect the time left to entertain oneself and read about the news? Also, how was the news back then? Was it all about making marketing profile and click-baiting?
Why would we want the youngest, least experienced, most ideological, and frequently petulant to elect leaders?
More youth voters won't fix a thing. It will, in fact, make things a lot worse.
Is this really that much more difficult now than in the past? I would think it'd be easier now given that information is easier to obtain and workers rights are at an all time high
The reasoning is for decades, newspapers sold many papers and made a decent amount of money, compared to today.
Therefore, the incentive to create better machines that allow them to sell more and prevent theft was higher then than today, and yet they did not.
Either the technology did not exist back then, or more likely, it simply was not worth the cost of better machines for the additional revenue.
Therefore, if it was not worth it back when newspapers were in high demand, why would it be worth developing today at a fraction of the demand?
"Local influencers" needs to become a thing, if it isn't already. That's the answer to the local news problem. If you want to know how to become a successful influencer just ask the popular kids at a school. Yes quality of content matters, but there's a mystical charisma component at the center of it.
Once local influencers have been established in an area then quality can gradually take on more of a role. Those who provide sensationalistic news will get their crowd, but some (hopefully those with citations, less sensationalism, and less bias) will eventually gain the status of "trustworthy". And over time some will gain enough popularity to start looking more like a normal business again, with local sponsorships and the whole thing.
This may seem a bit depressing at first but it's completely normal. As publication relies less and less on expensive machinery and elaborate organizations it will naturally gravitate toward individuals. Conglomerates like Sinclair only exist to pick on the carcasses of dead mediums.
If that's the answer, then I hope the whole industry curls up and dies now. If you want me to pay a single cent for trash like that, you'd have to stick a gun in my face.
I miiight do LA Times (doubt)
Paywall circumvention doesnt work well/at all on mobile
I agree that ad bombing eyeball news is very low quality in comparison to subscription news. Its a night and day difference. Its distressing that nobody else I know can really see or access these articles, being pulled by every clickbait version of an event