Regarding the NYT and WSJ, I don’t think there’s anything wrong in pointing out the obvious fact that WSJ’s owners, editorial board and most of its readers are Republican while those constituencies at the NYT are Democrats. And in both cases, the news is delivered objectively while the op-ed pages tilt right and left respectively.

As long as the lines between news, opinion are advertising are clearly delineated, I don’t think “native advertising” (or whatever buzzword we wish to use) will bring about ruin to journalism.

And it is way different that native advertising. Journalists should comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable, question the status quo and reveal truths businesses, politicians and other powerful entities seek to hide. Giving those entities any sway over content, even this limited sway is immoral and unethical and it destroys journalism.

The internet is the best suited forum holding the potential for true Jeffersonian Democracy, and unlike the Citizens United case, the corps and groups would not be treated equally to living people. Corps & Groups would actually have to pay to post (again with clearly marked separation), BUT the People’s voice must be free to post. All of the above must be transparent as to the author’s verifiable information.

Look, we know who the NYT or WSJ is and we know we know their political leanings. There is no ambush of bias or journalistic deceit, on the contrary, you may disagree with their political leanings, but the bias is not hidden. What we need is a multiplicity of ideas (not a confined restriction). This is the Information Age,so the key is no longer ‘the flow’ of information once restrained by paper, ink & delivery, we now have ideal ‘flow’ (possibly even information overload).

What we need as Consumers of the News is: (1) selection clarity and (2) source transparency. So give us better menus and cool ways to access subtopics, but also let us roll through any self-discovery that pleases us. If the NYT and WSJ wants to be relevant, try relating to the only audience you have left. We are online and need you to think bigger to keep pace with us.

All I see is “Buzzfeed Partner.” Couldn’t anyone be a Buzzfeed Partner?

As a long-time subscriber, I stopped paying for the New York Times six years ago, specifically because the independent contractors they hired to deliver the paper couldn’t do their job consistently, and the New York Times still expected me to pay for my subscription, even when they were delivering my paper to a former address in another state. I won’t do business with people who can’t keep up their end. I still read it of course, but I’ll never pay again. And it doesn’t even matter to the times because I’m not part of the demographic that their advertisers want to appeal to, so I’m irrelevant, and that’s a huge part of their problem.

A part of me is sad, but a more important part of me Has a great deal of contempt for a paper I had nothing but respect for in times gone by.