Quote:
Originally Posted by khalleron
Really, Steve, go drink some coffee. Now you're just whining...
What we're saying is that Steve is too enthusiastic in his support for paysites, to the point of seeming self-serving. I think he's being naive, too, as he seems to think that big news organizations are more honest and in-depth than small ones. They aren't - as the run-up to the Iraq war should show anyone who was paying attention.
He's also showing a bit of a condescending attitude, which is ticking people off, but that's another matter.
|
Just as you and others are clearly enthusiastic for non-pay sites, including projecting the attitude that anyone who supports or appreciates pay services, in any way, must be clueless and not worth listening to. In other words, I'm not the only one who sounds condescending, nor are you the only ones in danger of being ticked off. Maybe you should try some tea. I take 2 sugars, myself. (Coffee's for wimps.)
I didn't start this thread to discuss the relative honesty, trustworthiness and quality of paid versus free sites... that opinion was forced upon this thread by others, many of whom clearly have issues with established professional news services, which is their right. I note that, while we have taken the effort to name mainstream news services, we have not singled out any "citizen journalism" services to compare and contrast to, leaving the discussion severely one-sided. (And NO, let's not start now.)
However... this thread, in point of fact, is about discussing whether or not the web is all about 100% free content, as Rusbridger suggests, and as I have disagreed. As the discussions about other news services, however on-or off-topic, have obviously resulted in a standoff (hey... it is MR, after all... these things happen), and as I have no interest in antagonizing MR members any further (always my intent... though I wish I could say the feeling was always mutual), I suggest we move on, and get back to the original subject at-hand.