Boston Globe Subscription (real estate, estate, rating)

[bjimmy24]

Save your money.

[BostonMike7]

I haven't read the globe in about 10 years. So many sources of news these days without needing to pay for a subscription.

[AtkinsonDan]

Originally Posted by chicagoliz

The financial situations of most of the major papers is dire. But the Globe does still have real reporters and does have at least some commitment to investigative journalism. It is very important to support the local newspaper, wherever you live.

^ A very old fashioned and outdated way of thinking, the internet has spawned a wealth of credible sources of news and information.

[chicagoliz]

Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan

^ A very old fashioned and outdated way of thinking, the internet has spawned a wealth of credible sources of news and information.

The credible sources also depend on financial resources. Most reputable sites require or at least ask for subscriptions. Good reporting isn't free. People need to earn a living, even though some would volunteer to be able to report and write, most are simply not in a position to be able to do that.

Believing simply that "the internet" provides all the news and information you need is naive and uninformed. That is not the way the world works.

[AtkinsonDan]

Originally Posted by chicagoliz

The credible sources also depend on financial resources. Most reputable sites require or at least ask for subscriptions. Good reporting isn't free. People need to earn a living, even though some would volunteer to be able to report and write, most are simply not in a position to be able to do that.

Believing simply that "the internet" provides all the news and information you need is naive and uninformed. That is not the way the world works.

I never specified free sources, I said internet sources. There variety of sources available through the internet whether paid or free, allow people to get around any bias that might exist at a local newspaper.

[missionhill]

Globe remains very solid despite tough headwinds for newspapers. Supporting good journalism is not outdated. For local and regional news the Globe is a mainstay. All that’s outdated is the old business model when everybody read the hard-copy newspapers which, as a result, were chock full of lucrative advertising. If you don’t care what’s going on, sure, you can dispense with it. I’m guessing the people who’ve cancelled their subscriptions, or younger people who don’t think they should bother, aren’t plunking down money for other quality products either, they’re just going with free content, and I fear they’re more susceptible to Rush Limbaugh / Howie Carr type nonsense. I’ve read the globe for decades and on the whole it remains solid despite not having the kind of revenue it had in the fat years of the 1960s thru 90s.

Way way back there were a dozen newspapers in a big city like Boston, a point of view and depth of content to appeal to all the different segments. The Globe tries hard to be balanced because there aren’t any more niches in local/regional news; one paper has to appeal to lots of different tastes and viewpoints. Can’t please everybody; that doesn’t mean its no good.

[tysmith95]

Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan

I never specified free sources, I said internet sources. There variety of sources available through the internet whether paid or free, allow people to get around any bias that might exist at a local newspaper.

It's local reporting that I find to be the most vital to democracy. We often focus too much on what goes on at the federal level but a remarkable number of citizens are unaware of politics at the local level.

Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan

^ A very old fashioned and outdated way of thinking, the internet has spawned a wealth of credible sources of news and information.

I agree that there is a wealth of information online. However I disagree with the credibility fact. It seems like an unforseen consequence of the internet is that it's allowing people of both sides to isolate themselves with only sources that confirm their bias. I feel as if the internet as it is now is sort of destroying political discourse in this country. So many people take articles posted at face value and fail to adequate check the source. Because of this you have sizable chunks of the population who believe in conspiracy theories like Pizzagate.

[chicagoliz]

Originally Posted by tysmith95

It's local reporting that I find to be the most vital to democracy. We often focus too much on what goes on at the federal level but a remarkable number of citizens are unaware of politics at the local level.


I agree that there is a wealth of information online. However I disagree with the credibility fact. It seems like an unforseen consequence of the internet is that it's allowing people of both sides to isolate themselves with only sources that confirm their bias. I feel as if the internet as it is now is sort of destroying political discourse in this country. So many people take articles posted at face value and fail to adequate check the source. Because of this you have sizable chunks of the population who believe in conspiracy theories like Pizzagate.

+10000. Absolutely. I found it to be an enormous problem in the area where I used to live. There was literally NO local press. It was virtually impossible to find out ANYTHING that was going on with local politicians -- finding information about representatives to the state legislature was difficult. And finding out anything about town-level issues, such as town councils and school boards was a hopeless undertaking. Unless you already knew what was going on, it was so difficult to find any information, and even once you knew something was going on and went on a hunt for info, it was usually futile. This led to many bad things going on at the local level, and it was absolutely exploited by one of the political parties who managed to stack everything to their favor unchecked.

There are more sources that wouldn't require payment for info at the national level -- yes, you could look to some of the big news channels. BUT, even those channels rely heavily on reporters from "print" press. Turn on MSNBC or CNN (or even any of the network morning shows) and you'll see them interviewing and reporting on stories from the New York Times, Washington Post, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, The Los Angeles Times, and a slew of others. And those sources do need money to pay those reporters.

The unchecked growth of numerous "news" sources online is part of the huge problem with "fake news." Just look at all the Russian planted stories that fooled all the morons who don't distinguish between legitimate news sources and a news source run out of some guy's basement that reprints paranoid fantasies that are then re-shared and reported as fact by unscrupulous propaganda outlets.

Real, legitimate journalism is integral to our society and if it's not valued it will disappear.

[chicagoliz]

Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan

I never specified free sources, I said internet sources. There variety of sources available through the internet whether paid or free, allow people to get around any bias that might exist at a local newspaper.

Also, I suppose I should clarify. I indicated earlier I subscribe to the NYT, WaPo and the Globe. I subscribe to their online editions, not their paper editions. And I subscribe because I feel it is important to support them.

[tysmith95]

^Also your vote for a city representative or in town hall counts much more then your vote for president. You can actually make a difference by going to your local town hall, or in your local mayoral election. Local reporters used to sit in town meetings and report on small local issues. Blogs and the internet today do not do that, and that's the worst part about the demise of many newspapers. Without the press (and public) watching over local officials, corruption becomes much easier.