[maldusiecle]

Which do you think is cheaper to produce, agitprop or deep investigative reporting? If no one pays for news, which do you think will grow in proportion to the other?

[ok123456]

What is passed off as "deep investigative reporting" is actually agitprop, especially when reporters interface with and are concerned with maintaining access to the national security apparatus.

Yet, at the same time, the same journalists think they're "defending democracy from darkness."

I have no interest in funding that mind poison.

[Aunche]

I hate that propaganda has become a thought-terminating cliche. First of all, it's not necessarily a bad thing. "Agitprop" is literally what brought the deeply isolationist Americans to finally act in World War II. Also, just because you suspect that some journalism from a publication is propaganda doesn't invalidate the usefulness of all journalism from that publication like the Washington Post's opioid database.

[nh23423fefe]

This reads like a poor attempt at moralizing. Why would i imagine news revenue is directed morally? Why is the relative size relevant?

[stavros]

I think the point is "if you aren't paying, you're getting the cheaper of the two".

[barryrandall]

If people subscribed to a publication expecting it to be mostly news and got mostly sensationalism, do you expect them to keep paying?