The Economist web site offers a fair amount of free content and up to 5 free paywalled articles a week. I've been meaning to renew my subscription but so far their open coverage is keeping me informed on the euro view of the world.
(Well that, and assorted brit and continental newspaper websites.)
I've no need to let somebody filter world news for me when I can get my international coverage direct.
Essentially that is the problem with the premise they were "debating".
The idea that anybody can control/dictate what modern readers get to experience (via gatekeeping, "interpreting", or by mockery) is quaint when considered under the harsh light of modern connected reality. Both are forms of censorship, when you think of it.
Mocking adults who read YA is as effective as telling americans they need a local news vendor to interpret the outside world for them. There's no "great firewall" blocking off direct feeds from the rest of the planet so the modern critical thinker has no problem getting unfiltered news.
Freedom of the press no longer belongs solely to those that own a printing press so, of course, the entrenched players are floundering, looking for ways to control the uncontrolable.
Trouble is, there's a *lot* of djinns out of the bottle.
From SERENITY:
Quote:
River: People don’t like to be meddled with.
We tell them what to do, what to think. Don’t run, don’t walk. We’re in their homes and in their heads and we haven’t the right.
We’re meddlesome.
Teacher: River, we’re not telling people what to think… we’re just trying to show them how.
|
Show them how to "think properly".
No wonder they got a civil war.