The Wall Street Journal reportedly joins Apple News service, NYT and Washington Post decli...

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 77
    For example, the NYT article digging into how Trump's real estate empire used related shell corporations to artificially inflate the cost of rental unit repairs and justify rent rate increases was very well written.  The followup opinion pieces calling for Trump's head, investigations by every possible agency that could have jurisdiction, outlining every way they could think of to get every person to flip on Trump, etc. were way over the top and designed to elicit a particular emotional response rather than letting the reader figure out what they thought based on the facts.
    You have to remember that Trump and his family operated out of NYC and were despised by the general population there long before the presidential campaign. They were wise to how Trump operated decades ago. 
    fastasleep
  • Reply 42 of 77
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 4,958member
    78Bandit said:
    I do subscribe to both the NYT and WP.  One thing I have noticed is they very frequently intersperse their opinion pieces among their journalism pieces.  Their legitimate news tends to be well researched and well presented.  Their opinion pieces are almost totally liberally biased with a few token conservative commentators thrown in (apparently just to generate forum arguments).

    That's the one area I think news can be improved.  Move the opinion pieces off the front page to a separate section.  Make it very clear the news is independent and generally fair, even though how a news article is written can still be biased. We need more news outlets that we can trust to dig deep and give us all the facts.  Save the political hit pieces for somewhere else.  Every editorial board is going to have its opinion, and it is well within their rights to write about it, but it should never be given as much publicity and credibility as a news article that is held to the journalistic ethical standards.

    For example, the NYT article digging into how Trump's real estate empire used related shell corporations to artificially inflate the cost of rental unit repairs and justify rent rate increases was very well written.  The followup opinion pieces calling for Trump's head, investigations by every possible agency that could have jurisdiction, outlining every way they could think of to get every person to flip on Trump, etc. were way over the top and designed to elicit a particular emotional response rather than letting the reader figure out what they thought based on the facts.
    Totally, absolutely agree!   I was taught that in school 50-60 years ago:   News goes here.   Opinion goes there.

    But, at least for WP (I don't bother with NYT), I have no trouble distinguishing their opinion pieces from their news pieces.  

    But, cable news has totally intermixed the the two.  They not only intermix news & opinion pieces, but opinion is threaded through and into their news pieces.  In their defense, they seem to think of it more as "analysis" -- but there's a real thin line between analysis and opinion.
    edited March 21 n2itivguy
  • Reply 43 of 77
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 4,958member
    brucemc said:
    stevenoz said:

    Too bad Bezos won't give up his love of  profit, but that's that.
    Well, it is currently a value-add for Prime members at $3.99/mo (vs $9.99/mo), so this Apple News thing competes with that. It's understandable.

    This news doesn’t hurt my feelings at all. The New York Slimes isn’t really news anymore.  
    Absolutely ridiculous. I read the 125 Pulitzer Prize-winning NYT every day and it's chock full of news — maybe you bought a knockoff?

    You Fake News™ types are really just clearly suckers for the age-old propaganda/disinformation campaign that Trump is recycling from the Soviets, Nazis, tin pot dictatorships, etc. Oldest trick in the book.
    With a diatribe like that, jumping to all manner of conclusions with 0 facts about what the other poster meant, you might want to look in the mirror as to what the problem is...
    Nah!  He was spot on.   "Fake News" now means "News and facts that make me look bad and I disaprove of that" and facts, real ones, no longer matter and have been replaced with the same kind of propaganda used by the "Soviets, Nazis, tin pot dictatorships, etc. Oldest trick in the book."
  • Reply 44 of 77
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,791member
    The Times charges subscribers $10 a month. I know, because I’m one. In addition to the electronic sub, we get the Saturday and Sunday papers delivered. My wife likes reading the papers themselves on the weekends.

    in addition, we subscribe the the WSJ. They charge a whopping $32 a month, and you don’t get paper with that. I’ve been thinking about discontinuing that sub for some time, but their articles come up so often, that it’s been hard to do. Depending on what else is in it, I may subscribe to this new Apple thing. If so, maybe I’ll finally discontinue the WSJ sub.
  • Reply 45 of 77
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,791member
    stevenoz said:

    The New York Times is worth every penny you pay it... for top-level news coverage. Thank God for them.

    Too bad Bezos won't give up his love of  profit, but that's that.

    I'll definitely subscribe to Apple News Service long enough to see if it is worth it to me... and if I have enough time to also read the NYT, the Guardian, the Huffington Post, and The Nation, that I subscribe to.

    All Americans _need_ to be informed in these dark days of Donald. It's your civic duty.

    Yes, we really need NYT and WaPo to put out 10 stories a day about trump based on unsubstantiated anonymous leakers in these “dark days” lol. What a joke. 

    We don’t need agenda-based, biased MSM organizations that consistently put out 93% negative coverage of one person. That’s not news. That’s biased opinion fed to sheep.

    Apple may be one of the only hopes to facilitate objective journalism. I’m actually very much looking forward for trying out the Apple news service. 
    Honestly, if Trump wasn’t so, well I’ll be nice here, and say “odd”, there wouldn’t be so much about him in the papers. Even the WSJ has a lot of stories, and they’ve become more negative as time goes on. Like it or not, he’s the President, and every time he does or says something, and he says a lot, it’s going to be written about. Fox has far more about him than everyone else combined.
    edited March 21
  • Reply 46 of 77
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 4,958member
    brucemc said:

    Great news about WSJ joining.  Will definitely give the new Apple news service a try.
    Yes, while the WSJ opinion sections are extremely conservative and totally biased. they're news sections are quite neutral and grounded in reality combined with some great reporting.   And, unlike FauxNews, even their opinion sections are usually based on fact and reality (but with a conservative viewpoint).
    This will be a great addition to the service and one I will use often -- probably daily.
    I will start by saying - I am not American, I don't vote for your president, and don't follow US politics too closely (personally I can't take the 24 hour election cycle that lasts all year, every year).  I do read some each week though to be informed at the high level.

    What I find funny is that both sides think that "their side" is balanced, and the other ones are biased.  From what I read:
    - CNN, NYT, WaPo are Democrat biased
    - Fox News, WSJ are Republican biased

    Is it really that hard to see?
    It isn't hard to see for those who value facts and reality.  FauxNews has increasingly become the Republican (and now Trump) official propaganda outlet where facts and reality no longer have any importance or relevance.   They started by assuming that the far-right was America and everybody else was far left.  Now, they have escalated it to calling anybody who reports fact as "FakeNews".

    So, yes, it is pretty easy for those grounded in reality to see.

    (News reporting at the WSJ has always been fairly straight, true and objective -- and the Bancroft's made Rupert Murdoch promise not to change that when they sold it to him,  And, Murdoch has pretty much stuck to that bargain.   But, the opinion section has always been very conservative.)
  • Reply 47 of 77
    This is a moot point for me. They’ll still have a much greater amount of left-biased news. Apple needs to stop getting into politics or I may soon go to Samsung. And I’ve had an iPhone since day one, I have 2 AppleTVs, 2 Apple Watches, and 2 iPad Pros.
    patchythepirate
  • Reply 48 of 77
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,313member
    melgross said:
    stevenoz said:

    The New York Times is worth every penny you pay it... for top-level news coverage. Thank God for them.

    Too bad Bezos won't give up his love of  profit, but that's that.

    I'll definitely subscribe to Apple News Service long enough to see if it is worth it to me... and if I have enough time to also read the NYT, the Guardian, the Huffington Post, and The Nation, that I subscribe to.

    All Americans _need_ to be informed in these dark days of Donald. It's your civic duty.

    Yes, we really need NYT and WaPo to put out 10 stories a day about trump based on unsubstantiated anonymous leakers in these “dark days” lol. What a joke. 

    We don’t need agenda-based, biased MSM organizations that consistently put out 93% negative coverage of one person. That’s not news. That’s biased opinion fed to sheep.

    Apple may be one of the only hopes to facilitate objective journalism. I’m actually very much looking forward for trying out the Apple news service. 
    Honestly, if Trump wasn’t so, well I’ll be nice here, and say “odd”, there wouldn’t be so much about him in the papers. Even the WSJ has a lot of stories, and they’ve become more negative as time goes on. Like it or not, he’s the President, and every time he does or says something, and he says a lot, it’s going to be written about. Fox has far more about him than everyone else combined.
    Look up Scott Adams on his Twitter feed (@ScottAdamsSays) and watch his Periscopes (streaming videos). Although he’s politically Left, he has some of the most insightful comments about the President I’ve seen from any commentator.
    patchythepirate
  • Reply 49 of 77
    stevenoz said:

    The New York Times is worth every penny you pay it... for top-level news coverage. Thank God for them.

    Too bad Bezos won't give up his love of  profit, but that's that.

    I'll definitely subscribe to Apple News Service long enough to see if it is worth it to me... and if I have enough time to also read the NYT, the Guardian, the Huffington Post, and The Nation, that I subscribe to.

    All Americans _need_ to be informed in these dark days of Donald. It's your civic duty.

    I don’t like Donald very much, but dark days? Where were these truth tellers in Obama years?
    He wasn’t fucking up the country every week while lining his pockets and those of family members while also banging porn stars and bribing them to keep quiet about it. Oh and sucking up to dictators who he believes are “good guys”. None of this is normal presidential behavior. We didn’t have to talk about it during the Obama years because none of that happened. This isn’t rocket science. 


    Lol. Here you go not making sense again. Trump has *lost* over 1 billion $ since taking office. Look it up. In addition, he donates 100% of his presidential salary. The members of his family who are official paid advisors also donate 100% of their salary.

    Sucking up to dictators? Lol. You mean being the first person to bring peace to the Korean peninsula in decades? What a terrible accomplishment!

    Didn't have to talk about what during the Obama years?? You mean when Lybia was destroyed and the arab spring was started, leading to deaths and chaos, and leaving jihadist slave traders in Libya right now? Didn't talk about the creation of ISIS under Obama's watch? Btw, Trump has now defeated ISIS, which no longer holds any territory.

    I could go on to even further debunk every one of your false statements, but you seem like you're mostly emotionally driven and aren't able to see things objectively, so I'll just stop here for now.

    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 50 of 77

    stevenoz said:

    The New York Times is worth every penny you pay it... for top-level news coverage. Thank God for them.

    Too bad Bezos won't give up his love of  profit, but that's that.

    I'll definitely subscribe to Apple News Service long enough to see if it is worth it to me... and if I have enough time to also read the NYT, the Guardian, the Huffington Post, and The Nation, that I subscribe to.

    All Americans _need_ to be informed in these dark days of Donald. It's your civic duty.

    Yes, we really need NYT and WaPo to put out 10 stories a day about trump based on unsubstantiated anonymous leakers in these “dark days” lol. What a joke. 

    We don’t need agenda-based, biased MSM organizations that consistently put out 93% negative coverage of one person. That’s not news. That’s biased opinion fed to sheep.

    Apple may be one of the only hopes to facilitate objective journalism. I’m actually very much looking forward for trying out the Apple news service. 
    Hey what happened, you were triggered last week over the Trump stories here and said you wouldn’t be returning? Yet...here you are, and seemingly triggered again.


    I suppose I should be flattered that you seem obsessed with me and mention me all the time, but tbh I'm getting embarrassed for you. As I've clearly stated, I said I was unsubscribing (from the $10 ad free app), which I did. I didn't say I 'wouldn't be returning'.

    And you say I'm triggered? Lol.

    Btw, kudos to AI for allowing what seems to be fairly civil debate (so far) on here.

    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 51 of 77
    melgross said:
    stevenoz said:

    The New York Times is worth every penny you pay it... for top-level news coverage. Thank God for them.

    Too bad Bezos won't give up his love of  profit, but that's that.

    I'll definitely subscribe to Apple News Service long enough to see if it is worth it to me... and if I have enough time to also read the NYT, the Guardian, the Huffington Post, and The Nation, that I subscribe to.

    All Americans _need_ to be informed in these dark days of Donald. It's your civic duty.

    Yes, we really need NYT and WaPo to put out 10 stories a day about trump based on unsubstantiated anonymous leakers in these “dark days” lol. What a joke. 

    We don’t need agenda-based, biased MSM organizations that consistently put out 93% negative coverage of one person. That’s not news. That’s biased opinion fed to sheep.

    Apple may be one of the only hopes to facilitate objective journalism. I’m actually very much looking forward for trying out the Apple news service. 
    Honestly, if Trump wasn’t so, well I’ll be nice here, and say “odd”, there wouldn’t be so much about him in the papers. Even the WSJ has a lot of stories, and they’ve become more negative as time goes on. Like it or not, he’s the President, and every time he does or says something, and he says a lot, it’s going to be written about. Fox has far more about him than everyone else combined.

    Don't you find it a bit 'odd' that there is a constant barrage of breathlessly hyperbolic articles about how 'odd' (ie "un-presidential") Trump is?? How many 'sky is falling' and 'omg the world is ending' articles about Trump must there be?? Meanwhile, we have the best economy in decades (possibly history), lowest minority and female unemployment in history, peace in the Korean peninsula (thought to be the US's biggest threat by the previous administration), on and on..

    I think the biased coverage is the most odd thing. I, and many others, find Trump's oddness and straightforwardness appealing (although I am not a personal fan of his more boisterous tweets and statements).

    I just checked WaPo's front (web) page in case I misremembered. Almost EVERY story on the front page is directly or indirectly negative towards Trump. Almost EVERY one! It's crazy. No wonder there are so many bizarrely irrational Trump haters out there. Just about every story out there is negative.

    edited March 21 SpamSandwich
  • Reply 52 of 77
    1348513485 Posts: 62member

    Lol. Here you go not making sense again. Trump has *lost* over 1 billion $ since taking office. Look it up. In addition, he donates 100% of his presidential salary. The members of his family who are official paid advisors also donate 100% of their salary.

    Sucking up to dictators? Lol. You mean being the first person to bring peace to the Korean peninsula in decades? What a terrible accomplishment!

    Didn't have to talk about what during the Obama years?? You mean when Lybia was destroyed and the arab spring was started, leading to deaths and chaos, and leaving jihadist slave traders in Libya right now? Didn't talk about the creation of ISIS under Obama's watch? Btw, Trump has now defeated ISIS, which no longer holds any territory.

    I could go on to even further debunk every one of your false statements, but you seem like you're mostly emotionally driven and aren't able to see things objectively, so I'll just stop here for now.

    Lost a $ Billion? Look it up where, exactly, since he doesn't publish his alleged net worth. 

    First person to bring peace to Korea? HA! Truce since 1953. Name a military parameter that has changed since the North started their nuclear program. Fewer troops--no. Fewer weapons of mass destruction--decidedly no. Dismantling of nuclear development bases--no.

    Sucking up to dictators? Yes, every time: Putin ("I believe him" [on everything]), Bin Salman ("I believe him"), Duterte (“He has a very high approval rating in the Philippines.”), Kim Jon-Un (I fell in love", “At a very young age, he was able to assume power...So obviously, he's a pretty smart cookie.”).

    Trump, Obama and ISIS: ISIL (the correct acronym for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) was founded in 1999. Obama was elected in 2008. 

    Really, you couldn't even debunk your own mythology. Maybe you have the same disease pathology as Trump. 


    GeorgeBMacn2itivguyfastasleep1st
  • Reply 53 of 77
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 4,958member
    This is a moot point for me. They’ll still have a much greater amount of left-biased news. Apple needs to stop getting into politics or I may soon go to Samsung. And I’ve had an iPhone since day one, I have 2 AppleTVs, 2 Apple Watches, and 2 iPad Pros.
    To the right wingers, anything not FauxNewsy is "Left-biased".    Goodbye!
  • Reply 54 of 77
    I've really, really, really been enjoying access to the content that's there for free now from those with paywalls such as WaPo, WSJ, Bloomberg, etc. I'm assuming these are test runs and that Apple must be paying them for this or maybe those companies are seeing some other benefit from having a presence already.

    I'm fairly sure I'll pay $10 per month for additional access. It's easy and gives me access to really awesome articles. For the last few years I've been bouncing around paying serious cash for access to individual publications. I can't stomach paying for more than one so just choose one at a time. Having this subscription service means that I wouldn't have to choose.
    edited March 21 patchythepirateGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 55 of 77
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 892member
    spice-boy said:
    When I was a kid I delivered a newspaper 6 days per week. I did not ask the publisher for 50% of the profits. Apple needs to get over itself. 
    Did you deliver to hundreds of millions of people, and more importantly, did you market to those people and handle the sales?
    Yes I had a space ship and I delivered millions of newspapers per day. Apple in this case is offering a delivery service for other companies' content. They are asking for 50% of sales from businesses which already have subscribers of printed and digital content. Apple will tell them of course they will reach a bigger market...... but in reality Apple News will cheapen their brands. You cannot compare the movie and music industry to journalisms, one is created daily the others are big budget projects which can bring in revenue for literally decades after release, you've heard what happens to yesterdays newspapers?
  • Reply 56 of 77
    stevenozstevenoz Posts: 237member
    stevenoz said:

    Too bad Bezos won't give up his love of  profit, but that's that.
    Well, it is currently a value-add for Prime members at $3.99/mo (vs $9.99/mo), so this Apple News thing competes with that. It's understandable.

    The $3.99/mo deal is now dead. It's now $10/month for Prime members, after 4 weeks free.

    patchythepirate
  • Reply 57 of 77
    nhtnht Posts: 4,494member
    spice-boy said:
    spice-boy said:
    When I was a kid I delivered a newspaper 6 days per week. I did not ask the publisher for 50% of the profits. Apple needs to get over itself. 
    Did you deliver to hundreds of millions of people, and more importantly, did you market to those people and handle the sales?
    Yes I had a space ship and I delivered millions of newspapers per day. Apple in this case is offering a delivery service for other companies' content. They are asking for 50% of sales from businesses which already have subscribers of printed and digital content. Apple will tell them of course they will reach a bigger market...... but in reality Apple News will cheapen their brands. You cannot compare the movie and music industry to journalisms, one is created daily the others are big budget projects which can bring in revenue for literally decades after release, you've heard what happens to yesterdays newspapers?
    I won’t pay for WSJ by itself but I would as part of this offering.  NYT and WaPo’s loss.
    patchythepirateGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 58 of 77
    13485 said:

    Lol. Here you go not making sense again. Trump has *lost* over 1 billion $ since taking office. Look it up. In addition, he donates 100% of his presidential salary. The members of his family who are official paid advisors also donate 100% of their salary.

    Sucking up to dictators? Lol. You mean being the first person to bring peace to the Korean peninsula in decades? What a terrible accomplishment!

    Didn't have to talk about what during the Obama years?? You mean when Lybia was destroyed and the arab spring was started, leading to deaths and chaos, and leaving jihadist slave traders in Libya right now? Didn't talk about the creation of ISIS under Obama's watch? Btw, Trump has now defeated ISIS, which no longer holds any territory.

    I could go on to even further debunk every one of your false statements, but you seem like you're mostly emotionally driven and aren't able to see things objectively, so I'll just stop here for now.

    Lost a $ Billion? Look it up where, exactly, since he doesn't publish his alleged net worth. 

    First person to bring peace to Korea? HA! Truce since 1953. Name a military parameter that has changed since the North started their nuclear program. Fewer troops--no. Fewer weapons of mass destruction--decidedly no. Dismantling of nuclear development bases--no.

    Sucking up to dictators? Yes, every time: Putin ("I believe him" [on everything]), Bin Salman ("I believe him"), Duterte (“He has a very high approval rating in the Philippines.”), Kim Jon-Un (I fell in love", “At a very young age, he was able to assume power...So obviously, he's a pretty smart cookie.”).

    Trump, Obama and ISIS: ISIL (the correct acronym for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) was founded in 1999. Obama was elected in 2008. 

    Really, you couldn't even debunk your own mythology. Maybe you have the same disease pathology as Trump. 


    What?? This is just straight up delusion. Your post is both bizarre, and sad. 

    Look it it up as in google it. It’s a fact. Don’t blame me if you don’t know how to search for things on the internet. 

    Yes. Peace in Korea. How can you be so delusional about this. Even the last administration said NK was the biggest threat. There were constant missile tests, nuke tests, hostages, etc during the previous administrations. Now there are no missle tests, no nuke tests, hostages have been returned, soldiers remains have been returned, and peace talks are ongoing, with both sides stating a goal of denuclearization. 

    Sucking up to putin? Um, I don’t know if you’ve heard, but Putin is not exactly happy with trump. Trump strengthened nato, opposes Russia’s pipieline for fossil fuels that goes through Germany, is supporting Ukraine, etc. But you’re not happy because trump won’t publicly insult him and call him a liar? That is such a childish, myopic stance to take. Meanwhile, Obama did virtually nothing to protect Ukraine, and was caught on a hot mic telling the Russian president, “I’ll have more flexibility after the election.” You can’t make this stuff up!

    Thank you for corrcting me on isil or whatever lol. And thank you for that helpful info on its founding date. However, none of those fun facts you blessed us with changes the fact that isil or isis gained tremendous territory during Obama’s tenure, including expanding their practice of systematic child rape, and it didn’t improve until trump came along and wiped them out.

    Got any more selective facts that prove nothing lol? (Other than proving you having a strange aversion to reality.) Care to share what you mean by “disease pathology.” I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess you’re not a doctor. 
    edited March 21 SpamSandwich
  • Reply 59 of 77
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 3,089member
    chadbag said:
    The NYT ceased being objective journalism and new reporters years ago.   Even if articles contain lots of actual facts, the headlines and ways those facts are reported are biased to push the liberal progressive or sometimes just the Democrat view.  They've long been a joke. 
    Please share with us your preferred news outlets, I'm dying to know.
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 60 of 77
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 3,089member
    I wonder if the service will allow existing subscribers to certain news outlets to log in with their existing id? It would deprive Apple of that extra revenue but it would be annoying to have to use Apple News for those various channels and then safari and visit individual sites for others. Personally I’d certainly rather continue subscribing to The Guardian via their own site but accessing it on Apple news so they can get the full benefit of my support of their coverage. 
    News already allows this. Click on any article that says "Subscription" on it and you'll see the option to subscribe or sign in. I'm subscribed to WaPo which keeps some of its articles in the News app behind the paywall, but also offers some free content. I subscribed to them through Amazon Prime, so that was outside of News/Apple. NYT seems to only offer a small portion of their content in the News app and no subscription options, presumably because for the reasons here:
    https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/03/21/new-york-times-ceo-compares-apple-news-service-to-netflix-cautions-against-partnership

    As for the Guardian, they only post summaries and "Continue reading" links to their site, none of which is paywalled as their subscriptions are for premium apps and add-free reading etc, so I assume they're in a similar boat to NYT.

    Short version: it's up to the news outlet, not Apple.
Sign In or Register to comment.