Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NotThatZachRoberts t1_j5n2dri wrote

Reply to comment by DragoonXNucleon in CNET's AI Journalist Appears to Have Committed Extensive Plagiarism by iingot

No one wants to pay subscriptions, no one wants to see ads, no one wants to subscribe to an email list even. I don't understand how people think good journalism happens.

18

UniversalMomentum t1_j5oq5r9 wrote

I don't mind ads, but the kind of ads and the placement matters. They abused their advertising privileges and hurt their own brand reputation in the process. It was a foolish move! Similar regulations and content quality from TV should have made it to internet much faster, but many only half ass invested and their websites reflected the unprofessional and even dangerous state that kind of bad decision making produces. They get what they deserve on that one. Media has to earn it's reputation, not get special treatment.

12

Fake_William_Shatner t1_j5o84pp wrote

When a mommy and a daddy journalist like each other a lot and one of them drinks heavily.

3

Alexander1899 t1_j5odxlf wrote

Same thing with YouTube, and pretty much anything online.

3

UniversalMomentum t1_j5or3if wrote

Well .. isn't that the same as TV has been for decades as the dominate media source? I don't think many people signed up for cable to watch TV news they were getting with their antenna for free/with ads. Cable just bundled news with it, so this business model where you either pay for no ads or get free content with ads has been around a long time now.. since radio and TV broadcasting came out. In that case the nature of the broadcasts made subscriptions too hard to pull off because all you needed is a receiver, but still the business model seems to have worked just fine for a long time. It might not produce the most integrity, but subscription only news means the majority of your citizens never sign up and get no news.. which in theory should be bad, but given the state of polarization might oddly work out better.

4