I just wish there was some type of identifiable credit / penalty system for writing accurately as a news source. And this would include quotes / retweets. Never been a better time to be wrong about everything.
Good starting point is if the news is free. A shocking fraction of people get their news from solely free sources.
The core metric for subscription news sites is minimizing churn. A mistake will cost a subscription site subscribers who have a massive lifetime value. These sites are heavily incentivized to report high quality, accurate news even if they're not the first to break the story.
Yes, in this context.
> Why do you think an outlet that works for you will necessarily deliver better quality news that the one that works for advertisers?
I can’t explain the mechanics precisely. But it’s pretty clear when I compare my subscription and non-subscription sources where the quality lies.
If we held food safety to the same standards as paid news sources are held, people would get salmonella once a week.
Just like with anyone you meet: you are the judge if they are trustworthy, nice, mean, funny, etc.
That said, I think tech journalism is the bottom of the barrel. I just feel like they focus more on tech than journalism.