Basically, if all I can read is a headline how can I consider it informative? A news headline has as much evidence as your average Tweet, and can be deeply incorrect through the use of clickbait.
I do use methods to get around paywalls, but knowing that some/most people won’t, it seems counter-informative to solely use the clickbait headline to keep people informed.
An even more unpopular opinion: we should pay for good journalism.
Where is the good journalism at? I’ll pay for it if it actually is good journalism.
For actual investigative news: New York Times, Washington Post, Buzzfeed(I know right kinda crazy), Vox, and Al Jazeera.
Occasionally stuff pops up on other networks but they are the ones that consistently fund investigative journalists.
Edit: Washington Post will require vetting going forward. Amazon bought them a few years back an they have been going down since.
I agree with that, but am also limited to being able to afford just a few news subscriptions. Assuming I’m not the exception, it just seems to be counterproductive towards generating discussion in a community for discussing news.
People who can only view a clickbait headline also end up not knowing the context of what others are discussing that may have paid for the subscription, and could further be counterproductive in generating meaningful discussion.
Maybe the community should tag paywalled articles, such that those posts can be wholly filtered by users not wanting to see them?