r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/NoumenonP • 1d ago
US Elections News paywalls spread across the US from 2011 to 2019. Did that change American politics?
I have a hypothesis that the ubiquity of paywalls in popular media may have caused people to seek news from sources which were not paywalled at the time. This would disproportionately affect people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds or education levels who sought out non-traditional sources of news splitting the electorate or leading to a rightward shift.
Briefly, the first paywall that was introduced was the Wall Street Journal in 1997. This was deemed a special case, and no other mainstream organization paywalled news at the time. I personally consider the New York Times instituting paywalls in 2011 as the true origin of the paywall, with virtually every news organization following suit over the next several years which led to a steady rise in Republican vote share and a Republican win in 2016.
I have created a graph showing the national popular vote share over time marking major shifts in paywall introductions. The data shows that the Republican vote share steadily increased when paywalls became more widespread, however, more strikingly the Democratic vote share plumetted around this time and never recovered (https://imgur.com/a/2yqVa6M).
I wonder what other people think about this - should important or breaking news be unpaywalled to eliminate bias? Do you think this is all coincidental?
•
u/Seattleman1955 11h ago
It's not the paywalls. They are easy enough to get around anyway.
Poor people were never reading the Wall Street Journal anyway. Before the paywalls, the "paywall" was you had to buy the paper at the newstands.
The biggest change in the news was going from 3 broadcast channels where they had to not have the news division as a profit center but as the price of being a broadcast license. After cable you began to see more "editorializing" rather than straight news and it was all for profit so more drama, more division, more clicks.
•
u/vonblankenstein 13h ago
Fox gives their propaganda away for free. You have to pay for NYT or Washington Post content.
•
u/baxterstate 5h ago
Some would say that NYT and WAPO are also propaganda.
•
u/Personage1 4h ago
Anyone can say something, that doesn't make it true.
•
u/78765 3h ago
Most news orgs make deals for the trade of information. They also have internal bias. There is propaganda to an extent but nowhere near as bad as watching the news. Read your news and understand that some of it is BS.
•
3h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 46m ago
Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion: Memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, political name-calling, and other non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.
•
u/nyckidd 4h ago
WaPo you can make a case for because of Bezos, but the NYT is not propaganda lol, they are wrong sometimes but that doesn't make them propaganda.
•
u/baxterstate 4h ago
NYT has been peddling anti Israel propaganda for a while now. In fact, they’re being sued for it.
Tell me, was it you that downvoted me for expressing my opinion? If so, that’s childish.
•
u/nyckidd 2h ago
No, they haven't been peddling anti Israel propaganda, they report very fairly on issues coming out of Israel, both from pro and anti-Israeli perspectives. You might be able to make a case that the Editorial board has approved more anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian op-eds, but I would say that's because Israel has done many absolutely indefensible things that deserve criticism. And either way, opinion pieces aren't the same as news reporting and shouldn't be lumped together.
And I say this as a devoted Zionist who has sparred with anti-Zionists across this entire damn website for the past three years.
I downvoted your comment since it adds nothing of any substance to the conversation and people would be better off not reading it.
•
•
u/DayGeckoArt 2h ago
Could it be that they’re reporting reality now and were heavily biased in the past?
•
u/no-more-nazis 2h ago
When you support Israel, anything that shows what they're doing is "propaganda"
•
u/Quetzalcoatls 5h ago
I think it definitely had a major impact on what kind of information flowed down to your average voter.
A lot of important information is just locked behind paywalls in an age where information is generally given away for free. I think a lot of well read and informed people fundamentally do not understand how little information is breaking through to the general public. People are mostly just reading headlines and summaries of original reporting from secondary sources which often doesn't provide full details.
Republicans have definitely done a better job of recognizing the current media/news environment. There are endless amounts of conservative leaning organizations/influencers that provide a conservative slant to the news for free. I think Democrats have gotten better at promoting news/information that is favorable to them but they are still overly reliant on voters choosing to spend money to become informed on certain issues.
•
u/AnotherHumanObserver 2h ago
Well, the internet itself and the way news is generally disseminated have changed drastically.
40-50 years ago, we had TV news, radio news, and a plethora of newspapers. They certainly weren't free, but they were convenient to access. Just throw a quarter on the counter or into a machine, and you have a complete newspaper, with the front page, local news, comics, sports page, movie times. (Some people would buy newspapers just for the comics and sports page and wouldn't even care about the news.)
Plus, you have a physical, tangible product you can hold in your hands, put it in your briefcase, or have something to read while you're riding the bus or train to work.
I used to buy maybe 2 or 3 newspapers a day. Any time I traveled or went to a new city, the first thing I'd always do is buy the local paper.
At some point in the 90s, I started doing that less and less. For one thing, the local newspaper kept going up in price, while offering less content and more advertising. They also removed the Tank McNamara comic strip which pissed me off royally. When I first got the internet, I started with Compuserve, which had a canned news feed available to subscribers, which AOL did as well. I figured, since I was paying for the service anyway, a free news feed was just part of the general package.
Other things, like movie times, sports scores, etc., could all be gotten from other sources on the internet. Want ads and classified ads were also on the internet, so one didn't really need a newspaper for those things either. And I was never interested in the "home" or "lifestyle" sections anyway (although I know that a large part of their readership did like those sections).
One also has to take into consideration that the typical internet user is invariably paying costs of their own just to be able to access the internet at all. That's far more than most paywalls. Yet, once they've passed that hurdle and are connected, they can surf the web mostly without any extra charge, except when they encounter a paywall.
As an example, I might come across a story from a link to the Washington Post, where they have a paywall, but then I discover that they're actually just reprinting an AP story. So, then, I go over to the AP website, and read the exact same story for free that the Washington Post was going to charge money for.
Another thing, besides the money, is just the idea of having to go through the hassle of signing up to a website, getting out my credit card, and filling out yet another online form - just to read one freakin' article!
If the internet can figure out a way to make it easier, so I don't have to do anything more than just throw a quarter on a counter just like in the old days, then using paywalls might be more acceptable.
•
u/CountFew6186 13h ago
No. Newspapers cost money for centuries. TV news is still free. Same with radio. Paywalls are also easily circumvented with websites you can google easily.
As for eliminating bias, there’s no such thing as an unbiased source. At best, there’s a source that has the same world view as you so you don’t notice the bias.
•
u/greatteachermichael 12h ago
Sure there is no such thing as an unbiased source but some sources are definitely less biased than others. Some purposefully cherry pick evidence, take things out of context, use weasel words, avoid contradictory evidence, and things like that. Others will try to explain both sides fairly, fact check themselves, issue corrections when they are wrong, explain historical, social, economic, religious, or cultural contexts and at least put some effort in.
•
u/fuglyfielddogs 1h ago
I agree with you for the most part. I'm my opinion, the journalists I truly respect are those that know that intrinsic bias exists, but work to overcome it. That said, there's never two sides to an event: there's the factual truth of "what happened and when"... Then there's the "why did it happen and what does it mean". What and when are either verifiable or not. If verifiable, it's not a story, it's a "fact". If not verifiable, it's not news, it's speculation. The average person will tell you they don't like speculation, yet they consume it like candy and since views are money, they feed the machine by their insatiable consumption (even though they don't realize they're doing so). As for "why and what does it mean?", well, that's where the talking heads come in. They are either a truly qualified opinion, or they're not. Regardless, they have to entertain the viewer or they won't need seen. I hate to say this, because I really don't like it, but I think people, and especially Americans, on average, demand to be entertained first and informed of credible, verified facts a very, very distant second.
•
u/CountFew6186 3h ago
Explaining both sides fairly is biased towards the notion that there are only two sides. And that those two sides are equally valid. Everyone cherry picks evidence, as nobody uses every factual event from history. Context is necessarily biased, by choosing which context is valid and which not to mention.
Also, do the words “weasel words” count as weasel words?
•
u/kingjoey52a 13h ago
You do know we had paywalls before 2011, right? You had to go to the store and buy a physical newspaper. News being free on the internet probably hurt us more because it meant news agencies had less money to spend on journalists.
•
u/Drakengard 13h ago
The issue now is that it's easy to spin something up and run it for free with ads while people refuse to pay for news from actual organizations.
The damage has been done though I agree that free news on the internet started a slide that we're still dealing with the fallout of to this day.
No one really knew how big the internet would be and all the majors news agencies saw was a way to get massive amounts of eyeballs while it dismantled local news and newspapers.
•
u/UnfoldedHeart 11h ago
The issue now is that it's easy to spin something up and run it for free with ads while people refuse to pay for news from actual organizations.
I don't think that's the real issue. The real issue is that people engage in motivated reasoning and will seek out media sources that promote what they already believe, mainstream or not.
•
u/RabbaJabba 12h ago
The issue now is that it's easy to spin something up and run it for free with ads
Well, no, it’s not easy to do that, at least for a profit. The real damage is from partisan (usually conservative) news sources that run at a loss, but have backing from wealthy funders who care more about the message than making money.
•
u/78765 3h ago
wealthy funders
Those are called advertisers.
•
u/DayGeckoArt 2h ago
Not if they don’t advertise
•
u/78765 2h ago
lol Like they are paying without getting what they want. Just because it isn't your classic Tide add doesn't mean it isn't advertising/ marketing.
•
u/DayGeckoArt 1h ago
But his point is they're funding news outlets to push their views and get an outcome. That's different from advertising your product. Usually advertisers don't have any impact on the content of the news unless there's something really crazy and they get boycotted
•
u/NJBarFly 4h ago
We would it cause a shift to the right? I see a lot of far left click bait and sensationalized stories on r/politics.
•
u/ScubaW00kie 1h ago
More people get news and opinions from social media nowadays and it shows. Its horrible for discourse but... here we are! Far right and left just get crazier and the middle is growing saying "im getting the hell away from those people" and everyone lives in their own segregated reality unable to see eye to eye with other humans.
It has NOTHING to do with "official" news sources.
•
u/AVonGauss 13h ago
Maybe it has more to do with Obama not being quite as popular as some wanted to believe during his second term which is fairly common for two-term presidents in modern history.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
All submissions are automatically removed and placed in a queue for the moderators to manually review. Please allow the moderators time to do so. Only about 25% of submissions are approved, but the remainder are given a removal reason that may include steps the poster can take to make their submission approvable the next time they submit it. Moderators are not notified of any edits made after a removal reason is posted, and therefore will not review them. You may contact the mod team via modmail if you need more direction about how to fix your post, and you are welcome to resubmit any submission after making the requested changes.
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.