Ever since I was a child, listening to the reports of the far-flung battles of World War II on my radio, I dreamed of being a reporter. I also had a pretty clear sense that I never wanted to be a businessman. Chasing down a lead? Prepping for a contentious interview? Getting a source to go on the record? Sign me up. Parsing spreadsheets? Hiring and firing? Talking about market expansion and brand development? No thanks.
However, here in 2021, the worlds of business and journalism are colliding with more ferocity and disruption than I have ever seen. It is a trend that has been accelerating over the last several decades. The business model that largely supported journalism, based on advertising, has collapsed for print (newspapers and magazines) and shaken radio and television news in a digital world. And the trend of putting out content for free in an effort to reach readers and viewers has driven down profits and shrunk and often shuttered newsrooms.
There is a new push for subscription models at major national and smaller local publications. It is something we are trying, in our own meager way, with the Steady newsletter. After giving much of my writing away on social media for years, I needed to try to create sustainability to support our efforts (so please subscribe if you can). We did announce last week that we are going to start reserving some content here for paying subscribers (beginning tomorrow), but I have also pledged to keep most of what we do free of charge. It’s a balance that seems might work: the payments of those who have the means can support content for many who do not.
Journalism is not free, especially deep digging investigative reporting and foreign coverage. But subscriptions can’t be the only answer. There was a wonderfully provocative title in Current Affairs magazine which gets to the heart of much of the problems we are seeing today: The Truth Is Paywalled But The Lies Are Free.
I am very interested in developing new business models even beyond this newsletter, perhaps with new technological innovations that can serve both to keep journalism a viable enterprise and also be of value to price-conscious consumers of news.
So my question for today is what do you think of paying for journalism? What publications do you subscribe to? Would you be willing to consider and experiment with other methods of support?
Thank you all for your continued support. And if you want to read even longer thoughts of my views of journalism, its business models, and importance much more broadly, here is an excerpt from our book WHAT UNITES US printed in The Atlantic (not paywalled).
I would like to see two things happen to help with this matter. First, I would like there to be a progressive clearing house that would list all "member" journalism sites that wish to charge a fee for their services. Readers could peruse this list and by merely checking a box subscribe to a site monthly on an on going basis (until they came back and unchecked the site). Their credit card would be charged repeatedly for each month. The clearing house would of course take a small percentage of receipts for their own expenses and a modest profit, and forward on the balance to the respective journalism sites with the identifying info of the subscribers.
Second, all these sites that offer a "deal" of $1 or $2 a month for a limited time before raising their price to a level that inhibits continued subscriptions would have to be willing to continue those subscriptions indefinitely at that price.
So if I have 5-10 sites that I regularly read things on now (free) or for an occasional small support payment, I would go to the clearing house page, check my guilty pleasures and start paying my $5-10 a month regularly and long term to support those sites. I give payment information to only one source, and have only one place I need to visit if I want to change or cancel later by unchecking the square next to any particular journalist source. Very user friendly.
I am willing to pay for journalism. As evidence, I offer my subscription here. What I am not willing to pay for is both-siderisms, fluff, product/service placement, or writing that confuses accusations, confirmed evidence, and conclusions. I would accept the business model for journalism if it held to those standards; mostly It does not.
We do not have the tools to manage the media (TV, radio, Internet), which is why we are in the current situation. The question should not be, "would you pay" because everyone pays for news (good or bad). The question should be, "How do we clean up the news that we have access to now?" This isn't about freedom of speech, but about enforcing existing laws, standards, and ethics that were all thrown out the window with the birth of the Internet as a news medium.
News has never been free. We have either purchased a newspaper, watched network news with commercials, or listened to radio news with commercials. The Internet helped many people bypass that, but I never saw that as sustainable.
I don't see a future where reliable news is free so I think the solution is to find a way to make reliable news available to everyone equally in a way that is not onerous to those who have fewer resources. Right now that means TV and radio (and to a lesser extent, the Internet) because they are the common denominator for most economic layers, even in our highly stratified country.
We just (as in it's just so simple) need to better regulate our media, and be able to put some force behind that regulation. We already have the best media for dispensing the news but we are not regulating it well.
Once upon our time, the news at the national network level was NOT advertiser supported, was NOT required to make money. This time had giants and these we trusted. As a child I looked up at the screen and Walter Leland Cronkite Jr was like a Dad to me. The things that man walked me thru, from a dead president to a man on the moon. The greed of Advertising brought us to this day where Trump can lie with impunity and be applauded. News, the data our lives need our "baseline reality" should be free, honest, trusted and accurate. Commentary, Insight, Research, Diving into History, Opinions, Interests... this can stay on the top shelf available to all as we grow and come to require them.
Your job dear journalist to me is be my Information Barista, but your job to our culture therein lays the bitch, but one of those giants I recall was a man name Dan Rather so as they say, lets roll.
We are told to think global yet act local. Good advise but different data streams. Knowledge holds value but life demands assets that far to many just cant afford.
Curse the economy that favors the cash elite as the poor stay stupid getting lied to for free
I understand the news is not free. Dad paid for the daily newspaper. I also bought a newspaper and news magazines for years. Broadcast television was paid for through advertisement. I started consuming news on YouTube for free years ago. I follow Philip Defranco. I guess my problem with paying for news coverage now is finding the answer to the question, "who do I trust" to give me the news without a political slant? I also have access to international outlets that I would have never had access to if it were not for the internet. Consuming news in a pay-per-view, subscription format can become very expensive. So, again, only the rich can be fully and completely informed while the poor get the lies.
I currently subscribe (monthly)to two news sources. Washington Post (my home town newspaper) and Ars Technica an online tech site. What I would like is some sort of micropayments to read other articles or blogs of interest. One time payment through Apple Pay to read the news story or that days blog.
First, I tend to support models that have at least some of the content free, for the very reason you mention. I prefer a sponsorship model where those with means help keep the content free for all. What I'd like to see is a "pay for depth" model, where the summaries are free to all, but subscribers get a full write-up. That way good info is out there, and I could support outlets that have depth in my areas of interest.
Our local newspaper just announced a rate increase to $312 (+taxes) per year. That's for access to the digital edition and a print copy of the Sunday newspaper. I was not happy, but willing to pay $225/year before, but $312+ is a bridge too far for me. I cancelled my subscription. I have several other subscriptions that I will continue and will look for another source for local news.
I am very happy to pay for news; online, print, or our small, local radio station. We donate to our local radio station and subscribe to The NY Times, Washington Post, Bloomberg, CS Monitor, Sun Magazine, High Country News and a variety of smaller publications. I’ll subscribe to you, too. Thinking about the Globe and Mail in Canada - we need to understand what they are thinking. (My Montana mother subscribed to them maybe 50 years ago for the same reason!).
I am retired and living below the poverty line. Now that I am retired I have much more time to stay abreast of national affairs and also local news. I am luckier than most in that I have affordable housing.
I spend about $50 on the internet service and that is the basis for almost all my news gathering. I spend $50on an annual subscription to my local newspaper. I also subscribe to the Washington Post. I pay $60 to U Tube TV and with that I get my local T.V.news and MSNBC and CNN plus the PBS Newshour. I subscribe to Steady and get Ann Cox Richardson news summery email for free. That is the extent of my news gathering.
I boycott facebook because some friends of mine literally went down a rabbit 🐇hole and ended up in Qanon starting by getting news by rumor on facebook. I also don't let myself read what's trending online. That's where my neighbor got brainwashed.
My income is under $12,000a year, but I still pay for Steady and enjoy it's content.
As long as the hunter only writes the stories, the hunter remains a hero. Slated, bias his stories not worth my slave wage. Truth in America will never be found in the white controlled media outlets, just truthfully ask and listen to any minority member of any other groups of Americans how they are demonized with current news coverage. Even the playing field for all Americans not just the true new minority dreamers! Or keep spending money and falsely believe what is written in media.
I have been paying for my local newspaper for years, so I have no problem paying for news online. There are trusted sources such as yours, and I understand that journalists work for a living too. So far, the online sources I subscribe to are very reasonable.
I don't think I would mind paying for content as long as the fees are reasonable. I wouldn't pay the same for digital as I would for print because there are no printing or distribution costs. Once it has been posted, it's immediately accessible to anyone. I have seen places who charge the same price for digital and print which I think is ridiculous.
I don't think I would mind paying for content as long as the fees are reasonable. I wouldn't pay the same for digital as I would for print because there are no printing or distribution costs. Once it has been posted, it's immediately accessible to anyone. I have seen places who charge the same price for digital and print which I think is ridiculous.
I am definitely willing to pay for good journalism. I currently subscribe to The Atlantic & National Geographic. There are 2 reasons I haven't subscribed to Steady: 1) The cost, 2) The fact it's online which I will explain. I sit in front of a computer all day and given this I prefer reading an actual magazine, newspaper or book. I also find that anything of a certain length online I tend not to read all of it or a skim it.
Now it's not like I am asking you to publish a magazine or something but if you did I would have absolutely no hesitation in subscribing. For now I am enjoying the free portion of Steady as much as I am able.
While I understand the need to be sustainable and at least break even in a business...I feel we shouldn't have to pay for news.
It should be free information so that the public can remain educated on the issues.
We should not have to try to weed out what a reliable/reputable group would be and be charged for it in the process.
Having to pay would discourage people from reading and investigating new sources for news.
There is a bit of a difference for content that is for leisure and content that is for items like education, disasters that are occurring, political events, conflicts/wars, things of this nature.
If someone can't afford to read and learn about current events this is forcing them to be ignorant on topics. That is the last thing we want. We need educated informed people.
Thank you for this informative message. It's a shame we have to pay for real news these days, but I will happily support your efforts (and Heather Cox Richardson's) on Substack as long as I can. You and your staff are doing great work. Thank you.
I find myself turning off respected news shows, as they often sink into opinion and theory of who might do what next. This article pulls together all the reasons that have brought us to events of today. Thank you, Mr Rather, for explaining why I feel too much is happening behind a curtain. Truth may well be in the eyes of the beholder, but keep giving us the facts so that we have a chance to find that truth.
I believe honest news, non-partisan news is as important as your own heartbeat. Once I think I have found a reliable source, I am willing to pay. I know that revenue keeps the newspapers running, pays the journalists for their reporting and their opinions. So, I pony up the money to get my news fix.
I even pay monthly for my local news digital version. I won't mention their name here because I don't read the damned thing, I just pay for it to support local news. Their digital version is a mess, takes far too long to navigate past all the advertisements. The few times I've managed to fight my way through the click-bait to read the articles, I've found they do a good job of reporting, but the reading is not worth the fight. Will I continue to subscribe? You bet, I will. We need local news to survive and prosper.
I don't subscribe to The Guardian but I donate several times a year. I subscribed to this forum and a couple of other news organizations as well.
This is far too many words to say what I mean. Good news, reliable news, non-partisan news is worth the price. Find a good rag to read, then pay up!
I remember when we all paid for a newspaper subscription. It was reliably waiting outside to greet you upon awakening. It had the added benefit of allowing you to see how the weather looked for the day. Then you could grab your coffee and check in with the world.
I still want to see well written journalism. I don't like having to visit 5 websites to try and pull together a version of the truth from sites that are full of opinions and lacking on facts. Oh for the days when it was "Just the facts ma'am"
So yes I'm willing to pay for my digital newspaper. I currently subscribe to three of them. I believe the industry needs to adjust the pricing model though. The standard pricing is often in the range of $99-$129 a year. I look for special deals on mine because I don't have the $300 budget for three sites. Newspapers can reach a global audience now. Pricing should reflect the economies of scale that have come with the digital age. It can be more accessible and still allow the industry and it's people to make a good living and do the groundwork that is required for solid journalism.
Of this list I could probably dump NYT and WaPo and not miss anything. I dropped cable news years ago when it became obvious the MBA's were setting the agenda not unlike Ailes at Fox News. I was sad to see the major networks devolve into what they've become. I grew up watching CBS News, but no more.
I do all this on a fixed income as I'm retired, and I happily give up on less important things to support the journalists and publications I believe are essential.
All of this is new and wildly unorganized. I wish a way could be found to organize independent journalist to create a digital network equal to or bigger than the corporate model. I want all these platforms to find some financial stability so more time can be devoted to reported and less on securing revenues. In the end you truly do get what you pay for which is why I pay for Dan Rather and all the others.
I wish our local paper was worth subscribing to. It sold out, and I lost respect for the 'new' paper. I currently subscribe to the New York Times online, and to Steady. I also subscribe to 2 newsletter by social justice group.
I am a senior on a limited income. Subscribe to The Washington Post and NYT. If either raises their prices enough I will have to unsubscribe.
I am hoping to see new business models that support the news we need AND available to those readers who do not have the resources to subscribe to all the sources they value.
"Buying News" is not a model that inherently sounds ideal. But Funding honest in-depth analysis and reporting that is wholly truthful and balanced, to the best of the reporters and publishers ability, is desperately needed. There was a time when what we read in the newspaper and saw on TV could be assumed to be true, at least relatively. We have now reached the point where you can almost assume that network news is certainly dishonest. Even if what is reported is true, the whole story is not reported in a balanced and fair manner. And frequently, as we have seen, stories are simply invented with absolutely no shred of truth.
I no doubt am gullible to a point, simply because my life experience has led me to tell the truth and to trust that others speak the truth.
I would like to think that the news services I subscribe to, either by buying news publications, or subscribing to network television provide me with information that is truthful, and hopefully fair.
I'm not sure what your subscription model will look like. But by definition I am prepared to subscribe to news media. I used to by a newspaper daily, until I couldn't trust it any longer. So that is the challenge!! Who can we trust? No doubt FOX subscribers would not "trust" an honest accounting of the last 4 tears, or even months.
Sadly CNN is little better in that, while what they report seems near to my understanding of the facts, their presentation, and incompleteness of presenting all the facts, suggests to the Fox subscribers that they are lying.
I have been reading Mr. Rather's columns of FB for a long time, and trust him implicitly to tell me the truth, at least as he understands it to be true. Does a subscription model influence his point of view? I believe his proud history of journalistic integrity guarantees the answer to that is no. But it can expose him to charges of bias when the "fake news" mob "can't handle the truth".
I believe a world in which Dan Rather reports and comments on World events, is a better place than a world in which he doesn't.
I am for paying my fair share to read your journalism, Mr. Rather. However, I don't like the idea that paying readers would be privy to more news or selected news. I have a feeling that those of us who are able to pay some amount per month would do so in good spirit, not to get more or better news. My suggestion is to encourage payers so that all readers can read your 'columns' and you or whomever collects the money would be paid for expenses and whatever the money needs are. Please don't divide the news for the haves and have nots. Keep it all the same and those of us who are able will support your work. Thank you for the question!
As far back as I can remember, my parents and grandparents always read the newspaper, weekly and Sunday editions. They contained news! As young marrieds, then as young parents, and then as not so young parents with our kids married and having children, we continued to read the news. But we got more and more disenchanted each year. More advertisements (I know, it kept the cost of subscriptions down), then even more advertisements than news copy, with magazines being the worst culprits. We cancelled all our subscriptions, began searching news stands and magazine racks and only purchasing those with actual, factual content. We now subscribe to 4 magazines and look to TV's NBC< CBS< ABC and CNN for news. I can't say I'm delighted in any of the TV stations news content, but the mute button used on commercials at least allows me to listen to the content I want to hear, and keep up with what's going on.
My husband and I subscribe to several newspapers and magazines. In addition, we are sustaining members of NET and two public radio stations in Omaha. We believe in a free press but know that exercising that freedom isn’t free.
I've subscribed to Steady and appreciate it. When subscribers have access to more content, how will we know? Will we find a link in the "regular" posts? I am extremely picky about which news services/journalists I subscribe to, and these (as well as What Unites Us) feed my thirst for reporting that exhibits critical thinking with compassion.
We "subscribe" to our local PBS stations and our local newspaper with a monthly contribution; a yearly digital subscription with the Washington Post and of course, Steady.
Journalism is crucial to keeping our democracy on it's toes. I do wonder though how those without the means to subscribe will have access to anything meaningful if only social media remains free.
I already subscribe to a number of Substack newsletters and a couple not associated with Substack. I also subscribe to a daily print paper and the online version of NYT. I would love to read more on WaPo, but can't afford everything. *sigh* I would love to be able to both support MY news habit and those of others, but cannot. I put up with a ton of advertising on those sites that will allow me to read for free with that inclusion - but it's not fun. I only use that option for things I *really* want to read. Otherwise, I'd be lost, since I don't watch TV.
I greatly appreciate the range of journos that I can connect with on Twitter - and the fact that they frequently post threads that allow me to get the gist of what they're reporting. Again, I would dearly LOVE to be able to support all my fave journos, but cannot. If "news" as a whole, meaning reputable news sources, become strictly pay-per-view, I will be S.O.L.
I subscribe to five print newspapers and two on-line only. Paying per author, however, is asking a bit much. The micro-payment model described by Joe S., however, makes sense to me. One issue I have is how that it would work for browsing where I decide after the introductory paragraphs whether or not to read on. The micro-payment model would work for me with an RSS feed, but not Twitter, where context is usually lacking.
It never hurts to have a Patreon and a Ko-Fi for recurring and single-time donations/tips. Definitely put links to those here.
Also, newer generations care more about information they can put to practical use immediately that will definitely improve their lives in a quantifiable and bold way, such as recipes, DIY tutorials for everything from gardening to home repair to better communication with family, recommendations for books that can improve lives, the newest technology worth buying that saves time and effort, quick tips they can put to use that can improve their lives right now (such as mental tips and tricks for staying sane and positive during a pandemic), info on how to start and run a home business without running into trouble with accounting or the law, and so on. Said info, behind a paywall, would actually be worth the cost for us. After all... we're broke. We ain't paying for anything that isn't 100% worth the investment. In other words, put the super modern stuff behind a paywall and become a better version of Vice and Buzzfeed. You can do better than both combined.
I don't understand when people say that they didn't have to pay for news in years gone by. Huh? Remember newspaper routes? Remember newspaper boxes next to the bus stop? We've always had to pay for print media, and I continue to do so -- even though I am now retired and have a lot less disposable income.
I've moved out of the DC area, so now I get the digital version of the Washington Post. I also subscribe to NYT digital, and to print/digital of the Atlantic. I've tried other news outlets here in Michigan, but WaPo and NYT have spoiled me. I've started subscribing to STEADY, but no other individual. My free subscriptions include the nightly RELIABLE SOURCES newsletter. I donate, from time to time, to the Guardian.
I like the idea of paying per article, as mentioned by several others. I'd like to have access to an article or two in the Detroit newspapers, but I've cancelled my print and digital subscriptions.
Yes, I will pay for journalism. I subscribe to the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the New Yorker. Right now, I'm only getting your free content but will probably subscribe later.
Internet has shaped a mindset that news, apps, and many other services are or should be free. Then people complain about ads on the free services. "You get what you pay for," stands.
So many good comments. I worked for an ex Journalist- he taught me that the first para must summarize it all, and I will not make it but... 1) We depend on quality deep investigative journalism to help keep people honest 2) Accurate honest well explained facts should be free to all, as others say, otherwise those with less income get access to less reality. 3) I am not sure this is the right question. Until all people are educated on the scientific method, on critical thinking, on the value of being curious on basic human rights, and on morality your paid readership will be the fortunate and well educated who are already open to quality journalism. In today's USA this would require huge change. Not sure this helps, but I offer it as something to consider. I subscribe because I fortunately can, and to support you but I care most about a solution for the people who truly cannot afford to subscribe.
I believe in paying for good journalism that helps me understand the world I live in. To that end, I subscribe to Time Magazine, to Steady, and to the L.A. Times and the NYT.
Dan, I’ve grown up with your news and reporting. I admire your desire to participate in paid journalism. I want to subscribe to you and so many others; however, my job as a high school special education teacher has left me with a very small budget for these types of things. I’ve had to convert my whole curriculum to a digital platform and these expenses are all coming out of my pocket (as they are so many teachers this year) and are not reimbursable - heck, I can’t even get a reasonable tax deduction for them. I have an educator account with the NYT and WaPo, and that’s about all I can afford for now. I’ll keep enjoying your free offerings. Keep up the great work and may God continue to bless you with good health and the ability to keep writing for us.
Insofar as I have paid subscriptions to the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Sacramento Bee, it seems I'm willing to pay for news. Our cable subscription (no doubt) finances cable news stations.
I would like to see two things happen to help with this matter. First, I would like there to be a progressive clearing house that would list all "member" journalism sites that wish to charge a fee for their services. Readers could peruse this list and by merely checking a box subscribe to a site monthly on an on going basis (until they came back and unchecked the site). Their credit card would be charged repeatedly for each month. The clearing house would of course take a small percentage of receipts for their own expenses and a modest profit, and forward on the balance to the respective journalism sites with the identifying info of the subscribers.
Second, all these sites that offer a "deal" of $1 or $2 a month for a limited time before raising their price to a level that inhibits continued subscriptions would have to be willing to continue those subscriptions indefinitely at that price.
So if I have 5-10 sites that I regularly read things on now (free) or for an occasional small support payment, I would go to the clearing house page, check my guilty pleasures and start paying my $5-10 a month regularly and long term to support those sites. I give payment information to only one source, and have only one place I need to visit if I want to change or cancel later by unchecking the square next to any particular journalist source. Very user friendly.
Jeff Harrisjust now
I am willing to pay for journalism. As evidence, I offer my subscription here. What I am not willing to pay for is both-siderisms, fluff, product/service placement, or writing that confuses accusations, confirmed evidence, and conclusions. I would accept the business model for journalism if it held to those standards; mostly It does not.
We do not have the tools to manage the media (TV, radio, Internet), which is why we are in the current situation. The question should not be, "would you pay" because everyone pays for news (good or bad). The question should be, "How do we clean up the news that we have access to now?" This isn't about freedom of speech, but about enforcing existing laws, standards, and ethics that were all thrown out the window with the birth of the Internet as a news medium.
News has never been free. We have either purchased a newspaper, watched network news with commercials, or listened to radio news with commercials. The Internet helped many people bypass that, but I never saw that as sustainable.
I don't see a future where reliable news is free so I think the solution is to find a way to make reliable news available to everyone equally in a way that is not onerous to those who have fewer resources. Right now that means TV and radio (and to a lesser extent, the Internet) because they are the common denominator for most economic layers, even in our highly stratified country.
We just (as in it's just so simple) need to better regulate our media, and be able to put some force behind that regulation. We already have the best media for dispensing the news but we are not regulating it well.
Once upon our time, the news at the national network level was NOT advertiser supported, was NOT required to make money. This time had giants and these we trusted. As a child I looked up at the screen and Walter Leland Cronkite Jr was like a Dad to me. The things that man walked me thru, from a dead president to a man on the moon. The greed of Advertising brought us to this day where Trump can lie with impunity and be applauded. News, the data our lives need our "baseline reality" should be free, honest, trusted and accurate. Commentary, Insight, Research, Diving into History, Opinions, Interests... this can stay on the top shelf available to all as we grow and come to require them.
Your job dear journalist to me is be my Information Barista, but your job to our culture therein lays the bitch, but one of those giants I recall was a man name Dan Rather so as they say, lets roll.
We are told to think global yet act local. Good advise but different data streams. Knowledge holds value but life demands assets that far to many just cant afford.
Curse the economy that favors the cash elite as the poor stay stupid getting lied to for free
I understand the news is not free. Dad paid for the daily newspaper. I also bought a newspaper and news magazines for years. Broadcast television was paid for through advertisement. I started consuming news on YouTube for free years ago. I follow Philip Defranco. I guess my problem with paying for news coverage now is finding the answer to the question, "who do I trust" to give me the news without a political slant? I also have access to international outlets that I would have never had access to if it were not for the internet. Consuming news in a pay-per-view, subscription format can become very expensive. So, again, only the rich can be fully and completely informed while the poor get the lies.
I currently subscribe (monthly)to two news sources. Washington Post (my home town newspaper) and Ars Technica an online tech site. What I would like is some sort of micropayments to read other articles or blogs of interest. One time payment through Apple Pay to read the news story or that days blog.
First, I tend to support models that have at least some of the content free, for the very reason you mention. I prefer a sponsorship model where those with means help keep the content free for all. What I'd like to see is a "pay for depth" model, where the summaries are free to all, but subscribers get a full write-up. That way good info is out there, and I could support outlets that have depth in my areas of interest.
I’m coming late to the discussion, but I do pay for my news. Washington Post, NYTimes, two local papers, the New Yorker, my NPR station, and now you.
Since 2016, I have been compelled by events to put my $ where my mouth is.
It’ll be tougher when I retire, but it’s important to support journalism.
Our local newspaper just announced a rate increase to $312 (+taxes) per year. That's for access to the digital edition and a print copy of the Sunday newspaper. I was not happy, but willing to pay $225/year before, but $312+ is a bridge too far for me. I cancelled my subscription. I have several other subscriptions that I will continue and will look for another source for local news.
paying for news ... It depends on the source
I am very happy to pay for news; online, print, or our small, local radio station. We donate to our local radio station and subscribe to The NY Times, Washington Post, Bloomberg, CS Monitor, Sun Magazine, High Country News and a variety of smaller publications. I’ll subscribe to you, too. Thinking about the Globe and Mail in Canada - we need to understand what they are thinking. (My Montana mother subscribed to them maybe 50 years ago for the same reason!).
I am retired and living below the poverty line. Now that I am retired I have much more time to stay abreast of national affairs and also local news. I am luckier than most in that I have affordable housing.
I spend about $50 on the internet service and that is the basis for almost all my news gathering. I spend $50on an annual subscription to my local newspaper. I also subscribe to the Washington Post. I pay $60 to U Tube TV and with that I get my local T.V.news and MSNBC and CNN plus the PBS Newshour. I subscribe to Steady and get Ann Cox Richardson news summery email for free. That is the extent of my news gathering.
I boycott facebook because some friends of mine literally went down a rabbit 🐇hole and ended up in Qanon starting by getting news by rumor on facebook. I also don't let myself read what's trending online. That's where my neighbor got brainwashed.
My income is under $12,000a year, but I still pay for Steady and enjoy it's content.
P.S.I also boycott Fox News.
As long as the hunter only writes the stories, the hunter remains a hero. Slated, bias his stories not worth my slave wage. Truth in America will never be found in the white controlled media outlets, just truthfully ask and listen to any minority member of any other groups of Americans how they are demonized with current news coverage. Even the playing field for all Americans not just the true new minority dreamers! Or keep spending money and falsely believe what is written in media.
I have been paying for my local newspaper for years, so I have no problem paying for news online. There are trusted sources such as yours, and I understand that journalists work for a living too. So far, the online sources I subscribe to are very reasonable.
I don't think I would mind paying for content as long as the fees are reasonable. I wouldn't pay the same for digital as I would for print because there are no printing or distribution costs. Once it has been posted, it's immediately accessible to anyone. I have seen places who charge the same price for digital and print which I think is ridiculous.
I don't think I would mind paying for content as long as the fees are reasonable. I wouldn't pay the same for digital as I would for print because there are no printing or distribution costs. Once it has been posted, it's immediately accessible to anyone. I have seen places who charge the same price for digital and print which I think is ridiculous.
I am definitely willing to pay for good journalism. I currently subscribe to The Atlantic & National Geographic. There are 2 reasons I haven't subscribed to Steady: 1) The cost, 2) The fact it's online which I will explain. I sit in front of a computer all day and given this I prefer reading an actual magazine, newspaper or book. I also find that anything of a certain length online I tend not to read all of it or a skim it.
Now it's not like I am asking you to publish a magazine or something but if you did I would have absolutely no hesitation in subscribing. For now I am enjoying the free portion of Steady as much as I am able.
I am already paying directly and indirectly for numerous publications... I can't afford all this ...
Very quick comment before Zooming off to visit my granddaughter:
So far, the only online content I’m paying for comes with related physical publications.
So far...
While I understand the need to be sustainable and at least break even in a business...I feel we shouldn't have to pay for news.
It should be free information so that the public can remain educated on the issues.
We should not have to try to weed out what a reliable/reputable group would be and be charged for it in the process.
Having to pay would discourage people from reading and investigating new sources for news.
There is a bit of a difference for content that is for leisure and content that is for items like education, disasters that are occurring, political events, conflicts/wars, things of this nature.
If someone can't afford to read and learn about current events this is forcing them to be ignorant on topics. That is the last thing we want. We need educated informed people.
Thank you for this informative message. It's a shame we have to pay for real news these days, but I will happily support your efforts (and Heather Cox Richardson's) on Substack as long as I can. You and your staff are doing great work. Thank you.
I find myself turning off respected news shows, as they often sink into opinion and theory of who might do what next. This article pulls together all the reasons that have brought us to events of today. Thank you, Mr Rather, for explaining why I feel too much is happening behind a curtain. Truth may well be in the eyes of the beholder, but keep giving us the facts so that we have a chance to find that truth.
I believe honest news, non-partisan news is as important as your own heartbeat. Once I think I have found a reliable source, I am willing to pay. I know that revenue keeps the newspapers running, pays the journalists for their reporting and their opinions. So, I pony up the money to get my news fix.
I even pay monthly for my local news digital version. I won't mention their name here because I don't read the damned thing, I just pay for it to support local news. Their digital version is a mess, takes far too long to navigate past all the advertisements. The few times I've managed to fight my way through the click-bait to read the articles, I've found they do a good job of reporting, but the reading is not worth the fight. Will I continue to subscribe? You bet, I will. We need local news to survive and prosper.
I don't subscribe to The Guardian but I donate several times a year. I subscribed to this forum and a couple of other news organizations as well.
This is far too many words to say what I mean. Good news, reliable news, non-partisan news is worth the price. Find a good rag to read, then pay up!
I remember when we all paid for a newspaper subscription. It was reliably waiting outside to greet you upon awakening. It had the added benefit of allowing you to see how the weather looked for the day. Then you could grab your coffee and check in with the world.
I still want to see well written journalism. I don't like having to visit 5 websites to try and pull together a version of the truth from sites that are full of opinions and lacking on facts. Oh for the days when it was "Just the facts ma'am"
So yes I'm willing to pay for my digital newspaper. I currently subscribe to three of them. I believe the industry needs to adjust the pricing model though. The standard pricing is often in the range of $99-$129 a year. I look for special deals on mine because I don't have the $300 budget for three sites. Newspapers can reach a global audience now. Pricing should reflect the economies of scale that have come with the digital age. It can be more accessible and still allow the industry and it's people to make a good living and do the groundwork that is required for solid journalism.
Other than here I subscribe to:
Letters From An American
The Independent
NYT
WaPo
The American Prospect
Talking Points Memo
The.Ink
The Daily Poster
The Nation
The New Republic
Rolling Stone
Jacobin
Current Affairs
Patrons of Laura Flanders and Benjamin Dixon
The Majority Report with Sam Seder
Of this list I could probably dump NYT and WaPo and not miss anything. I dropped cable news years ago when it became obvious the MBA's were setting the agenda not unlike Ailes at Fox News. I was sad to see the major networks devolve into what they've become. I grew up watching CBS News, but no more.
I do all this on a fixed income as I'm retired, and I happily give up on less important things to support the journalists and publications I believe are essential.
All of this is new and wildly unorganized. I wish a way could be found to organize independent journalist to create a digital network equal to or bigger than the corporate model. I want all these platforms to find some financial stability so more time can be devoted to reported and less on securing revenues. In the end you truly do get what you pay for which is why I pay for Dan Rather and all the others.
A boy can dream
I wish our local paper was worth subscribing to. It sold out, and I lost respect for the 'new' paper. I currently subscribe to the New York Times online, and to Steady. I also subscribe to 2 newsletter by social justice group.
I am a senior on a limited income. Subscribe to The Washington Post and NYT. If either raises their prices enough I will have to unsubscribe.
I am hoping to see new business models that support the news we need AND available to those readers who do not have the resources to subscribe to all the sources they value.
"Buying News" is not a model that inherently sounds ideal. But Funding honest in-depth analysis and reporting that is wholly truthful and balanced, to the best of the reporters and publishers ability, is desperately needed. There was a time when what we read in the newspaper and saw on TV could be assumed to be true, at least relatively. We have now reached the point where you can almost assume that network news is certainly dishonest. Even if what is reported is true, the whole story is not reported in a balanced and fair manner. And frequently, as we have seen, stories are simply invented with absolutely no shred of truth.
I no doubt am gullible to a point, simply because my life experience has led me to tell the truth and to trust that others speak the truth.
I would like to think that the news services I subscribe to, either by buying news publications, or subscribing to network television provide me with information that is truthful, and hopefully fair.
I'm not sure what your subscription model will look like. But by definition I am prepared to subscribe to news media. I used to by a newspaper daily, until I couldn't trust it any longer. So that is the challenge!! Who can we trust? No doubt FOX subscribers would not "trust" an honest accounting of the last 4 tears, or even months.
Sadly CNN is little better in that, while what they report seems near to my understanding of the facts, their presentation, and incompleteness of presenting all the facts, suggests to the Fox subscribers that they are lying.
I have been reading Mr. Rather's columns of FB for a long time, and trust him implicitly to tell me the truth, at least as he understands it to be true. Does a subscription model influence his point of view? I believe his proud history of journalistic integrity guarantees the answer to that is no. But it can expose him to charges of bias when the "fake news" mob "can't handle the truth".
I believe a world in which Dan Rather reports and comments on World events, is a better place than a world in which he doesn't.
Kathleen Jacksonjust now
I am for paying my fair share to read your journalism, Mr. Rather. However, I don't like the idea that paying readers would be privy to more news or selected news. I have a feeling that those of us who are able to pay some amount per month would do so in good spirit, not to get more or better news. My suggestion is to encourage payers so that all readers can read your 'columns' and you or whomever collects the money would be paid for expenses and whatever the money needs are. Please don't divide the news for the haves and have nots. Keep it all the same and those of us who are able will support your work. Thank you for the question!
As far back as I can remember, my parents and grandparents always read the newspaper, weekly and Sunday editions. They contained news! As young marrieds, then as young parents, and then as not so young parents with our kids married and having children, we continued to read the news. But we got more and more disenchanted each year. More advertisements (I know, it kept the cost of subscriptions down), then even more advertisements than news copy, with magazines being the worst culprits. We cancelled all our subscriptions, began searching news stands and magazine racks and only purchasing those with actual, factual content. We now subscribe to 4 magazines and look to TV's NBC< CBS< ABC and CNN for news. I can't say I'm delighted in any of the TV stations news content, but the mute button used on commercials at least allows me to listen to the content I want to hear, and keep up with what's going on.
My husband and I subscribe to several newspapers and magazines. In addition, we are sustaining members of NET and two public radio stations in Omaha. We believe in a free press but know that exercising that freedom isn’t free.
I've subscribed to Steady and appreciate it. When subscribers have access to more content, how will we know? Will we find a link in the "regular" posts? I am extremely picky about which news services/journalists I subscribe to, and these (as well as What Unites Us) feed my thirst for reporting that exhibits critical thinking with compassion.
Happy to pay, but want to be able to pay as I go.
I’d be much more willing to pay a couple of bucks for a one day pass—like buying a paper at the newsstand than I am to pay a subscription.
Subscriptions are a hassle. They might be a better deal if you read one outlet every day, but who can afford to subscribe to all of them?
We "subscribe" to our local PBS stations and our local newspaper with a monthly contribution; a yearly digital subscription with the Washington Post and of course, Steady.
Journalism is crucial to keeping our democracy on it's toes. I do wonder though how those without the means to subscribe will have access to anything meaningful if only social media remains free.
I already subscribe to a number of Substack newsletters and a couple not associated with Substack. I also subscribe to a daily print paper and the online version of NYT. I would love to read more on WaPo, but can't afford everything. *sigh* I would love to be able to both support MY news habit and those of others, but cannot. I put up with a ton of advertising on those sites that will allow me to read for free with that inclusion - but it's not fun. I only use that option for things I *really* want to read. Otherwise, I'd be lost, since I don't watch TV.
I greatly appreciate the range of journos that I can connect with on Twitter - and the fact that they frequently post threads that allow me to get the gist of what they're reporting. Again, I would dearly LOVE to be able to support all my fave journos, but cannot. If "news" as a whole, meaning reputable news sources, become strictly pay-per-view, I will be S.O.L.
Willing, yes. Able, no.
I subscribe to five print newspapers and two on-line only. Paying per author, however, is asking a bit much. The micro-payment model described by Joe S., however, makes sense to me. One issue I have is how that it would work for browsing where I decide after the introductory paragraphs whether or not to read on. The micro-payment model would work for me with an RSS feed, but not Twitter, where context is usually lacking.
It never hurts to have a Patreon and a Ko-Fi for recurring and single-time donations/tips. Definitely put links to those here.
Also, newer generations care more about information they can put to practical use immediately that will definitely improve their lives in a quantifiable and bold way, such as recipes, DIY tutorials for everything from gardening to home repair to better communication with family, recommendations for books that can improve lives, the newest technology worth buying that saves time and effort, quick tips they can put to use that can improve their lives right now (such as mental tips and tricks for staying sane and positive during a pandemic), info on how to start and run a home business without running into trouble with accounting or the law, and so on. Said info, behind a paywall, would actually be worth the cost for us. After all... we're broke. We ain't paying for anything that isn't 100% worth the investment. In other words, put the super modern stuff behind a paywall and become a better version of Vice and Buzzfeed. You can do better than both combined.
Yes! I am willing to pay for the kind of news that you are doing.
I don't understand when people say that they didn't have to pay for news in years gone by. Huh? Remember newspaper routes? Remember newspaper boxes next to the bus stop? We've always had to pay for print media, and I continue to do so -- even though I am now retired and have a lot less disposable income.
I've moved out of the DC area, so now I get the digital version of the Washington Post. I also subscribe to NYT digital, and to print/digital of the Atlantic. I've tried other news outlets here in Michigan, but WaPo and NYT have spoiled me. I've started subscribing to STEADY, but no other individual. My free subscriptions include the nightly RELIABLE SOURCES newsletter. I donate, from time to time, to the Guardian.
I like the idea of paying per article, as mentioned by several others. I'd like to have access to an article or two in the Detroit newspapers, but I've cancelled my print and digital subscriptions.
Happy to pay for quality journalism.
Yes, I will pay for journalism. I subscribe to the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the New Yorker. Right now, I'm only getting your free content but will probably subscribe later.
Internet has shaped a mindset that news, apps, and many other services are or should be free. Then people complain about ads on the free services. "You get what you pay for," stands.
I did when I signed up.
So many good comments. I worked for an ex Journalist- he taught me that the first para must summarize it all, and I will not make it but... 1) We depend on quality deep investigative journalism to help keep people honest 2) Accurate honest well explained facts should be free to all, as others say, otherwise those with less income get access to less reality. 3) I am not sure this is the right question. Until all people are educated on the scientific method, on critical thinking, on the value of being curious on basic human rights, and on morality your paid readership will be the fortunate and well educated who are already open to quality journalism. In today's USA this would require huge change. Not sure this helps, but I offer it as something to consider. I subscribe because I fortunately can, and to support you but I care most about a solution for the people who truly cannot afford to subscribe.
I believe in paying for good journalism that helps me understand the world I live in. To that end, I subscribe to Time Magazine, to Steady, and to the L.A. Times and the NYT.
Dan, I’ve grown up with your news and reporting. I admire your desire to participate in paid journalism. I want to subscribe to you and so many others; however, my job as a high school special education teacher has left me with a very small budget for these types of things. I’ve had to convert my whole curriculum to a digital platform and these expenses are all coming out of my pocket (as they are so many teachers this year) and are not reimbursable - heck, I can’t even get a reasonable tax deduction for them. I have an educator account with the NYT and WaPo, and that’s about all I can afford for now. I’ll keep enjoying your free offerings. Keep up the great work and may God continue to bless you with good health and the ability to keep writing for us.
Insofar as I have paid subscriptions to the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Sacramento Bee, it seems I'm willing to pay for news. Our cable subscription (no doubt) finances cable news stations.