Wall Street Journal Sticking With Apple News Because It Brings 'Genuinely Different Audience'

[4jasontv]

Did you miss the part where the opinion section is one section of the paper, and clearly labeled as such. This is a standard practice in newspapers going back centuries. The person you’re responding to was pointing out how much they like that the rest of the paper reads as quite factual. That’s the mark of a good paper, keeping the opinions on the opinion page. (I can’t attest to whether the WSJ meets this standard, as I don’t read it, but I’ve heard this said of it more than once.)

See my post above this. There is no objective section of the paper. Give me one example of an article they posted that isn't an opinion piece.

 

[CarlJ]

Those tweet sized snippets today are reported by the average people, even news agencies rely on average people to capture video and pictures of current events.

Doing journalism needs a huge amounts of money, and they are no longer getting it from ads. The business model no longer works and the only way it will work is if they have an asset base that generates enough money they can spend on journalism. I guess like how PBS does it, based on donations, but as a business it will not work.

Getting tips from average people is good. Relying on that as the only source for your newspaper/site, rather than as a pointer towards a potential story, would be bad. And getting pictures and video from average people has the distinct advantage that everyone is carrying a decent internet-capable video/still camera these days, where 20 or 50 years ago, that wasn’t the case. Poor pictures of something are better than no pictures of something, and you can’t permanently station a camera crew on every corner.

The problem with the business model is that news has been separated out and effectively told it has to compete as a profit center with all the other parts of the organization. Fifty years ago, the major broadcast networks didn’t try to wring profit out of their news groups, they just saw it as a necessary part of being in the business, that perhaps got them prestige and trust, and got people to tune in to whatever show followed the news. Today, everything including news is broken out separately and someone is looking to maximize profit for it, or cut it as a bad investment. Also, these days, in addition to profits, they may be looking to push a political agenda. And, back in the day, everyone got the paper. So there was money to run much larger news organizations.

The “instant video/images from events anywhere” is a useful improvement. The other parts, not so much.

 

[BigMcGuire]

I like to pay for what I use. Why? Because I like using ... what I'm using. So to help what I'm using continuing to exist, I'll pay for it (like Macrumors). That said, I found most of the news sites to be re-hashes of each other, if not direct copies. For example, New York Times has a lot of the same content that the Washington Post has, and much more. So why pay for both?


I have found Ars Technica, The New Yorker, The Economist, New York Times, and Wall Street Journal to be the best of the bunch. I have access to WSJ through a side job but I find it to be the news site I visit the most frequently and enjoy reading the most.

The cost of these subscriptions is high. Right now, I have Ars, NYT, NY, and The Economist so it is very difficult for me to want to spend $9/mo on Apple News+.


How I do news? Throughout the week, in Safari, I'll CMD + SHIFT + D articles to my Safari Reading List. Then on the weekend, or if I'm free enough during a week night, I'll read these articles on my iPad. I find reading articles this way works best for me - adblockers keep the articles clean and most offer dark mode.

Apple News+ has ads, doesn't offer dark mode and has a confusing enough "reading list" that I haven't been able to get it to work for me. For whatever reason, even though Apple News+ recognizes my Economist and WSJ subscriptions, not all the articles show in Apple News+, meaning if I didn't visit these sites, I'd end up missing

I spent months trying to fine tune Apple News+ into articles that I want... but I still get some crazy recommendations, really obscure no-name publication sites that obviously paid for their placement. Now, this has gotten better over time... but still... I can't justify the cost.


My wife and I quit our Apple News+ months ago. We'll revisit it again when these new subscriptions plans come out over the next few months.

 

[Black Belt]

Who has the time anymore to wade through newspapers. I sure don't. It is nice to get concise content and from actual journalists rather than propaganda peddlers. Still, Apple news hasn't endeared itself to me with its sharing, demanding people you share to read on Apple news instead of the actual article link.

 

[ipedro]

I think the bigger issue is that news stories are not covered depending on who they are pandering too.

It's not what people know while watching the news. It's what they are not told.

I do not have Apple news but if I did, I would want a diverse collection of reporting from the left and right.

It's dependent on what you already read. I read The Washington Post and Toronto Star so those papers' stories are often suggested to me. I picked up a girl's iPad and her AppleNews had tons of gossip magazine suggestions. I've never seen any of that on mine.

I agree that we should strive to get diverse perspectives. Here in Canada, I'm adding The Globe & Mail which is further right than the Toronto Star but anything further right of the G&M or left of The Star are straight up propaganda and I will waste no time on those.

Follow your intended publications from across ideological lines and AppleNews will suggest those to you.

 

[Expos of 1969]

I believe at one time WSJ was a reputable operation. Now, not so much. Not taking its conservative leanings into account, it is very sleazy in how it runs its subscriptions. Very easy to subscribe online, but if one wishes to cancel one's subscription, suddenly online is not possible (except if you live in California where it seems intelligent state law has forced the WSJ yo accept cancellations via the Internet).

You are instructed to phone to cancel. Likely it is a multi-faceted scam. You are first kept on hold for some time and the WSJ and the phone company split the revenues generated by the time you are on hold, then once you reach some poorly paid person in a call centre you are subjected to all sorts of lsme attempts to keep you as a subscriber
Why the ********? Let the customer go as they came...via the Internet. What a shady organisation. **** you WSJ.

 

[BigMcGuire]

I believe at one time WSJ was a reputable operation. Now, not so much. Not taking its conservative leanings into account, it is very sleazy in how it runs its subscriptions. Very easy to subscribe online, but if one wishes to cancel one's subscription, suddenly online is not possible (except if you live in California where it seems intelligent state law has forced the WSJ yo accept cancellations via the Internet).

You are instructed to phone to cancel. Likely it is a multi-faceted scam. You are first kept on hold for some time and the WSJ and the phone company split the revenues generated by the time you are on hold, then once you reach some poorly paid person in a call centre you are subjected to all sorts of lsme attempts to keep you as a subscriber
Why the ********? Let the customer go as they came...via the Internet. What a shady organisation. **** you WSJ.

I absolutely loathe companies that do this. Being a Californian I never noticed this about WSJ. I will go out of my way NOT to subscribe with companies that do this, sadly they're everywhere.

 

[Expos of 1969]

I absolutely loathe companies that do this. Being a Californian I never noticed this about WSJ. I will go out of my way NOT to subscribe with companies that do this, sadly they're everywhere.

It seems Vermont, Maine and California law forces the WSJ to accept cancellation via Internet. If I subscribed here in Finland and then wished to cancel, I would have to call a UK number (not toll free). The internet is secure enough to subscribe, but not to cancel? The newspapers are on very thin ice and this is how they behave and hope to attract a loyal revenue base? I hope they go under soon.

 

[HornbackMD]

AppleNews is substantially improved in iOS 14. All I had asked for when it launched was for news articles anywhere in iOS, from Safari to Twitter, to open in AppleNews if that same article is available there. Apple has implemented this, finally.

Previously, if you found an interesting news article in Safari or on Twitter and you hit a paywall, you couldn’t open that article, even if it was available to you with your subscription in AppleNews+. You had to search for it manually, and Search in News sucks.

They fixed that. Now, you’ll either get a banner at the top of the article or it’ll open directly in News if you’re opening it from a link outside Safari. It’s great.

This is wonderful news! I’m always trying to copy and paste the headlines and that doesn’t always work. Thanks for sharing this gem!

 

[HornbackMD]

The Wall Street Journal has been one of the few newspaper publishers to participate in Apple News+, and according to statements from the company's CEO, Robert Thomson, The Wall Street Journal has no plans to end its Apple partnership.

As relayed by The New York Post, Apple News has brought the newspaper a "significantly new audience" that includes more women and younger people who might not otherwise read the WSJ.Thomson's comments come a little over a month after The New York Times announced that it was ending its partnership with Apple News because the service does not "align with its strategy of building direct relationships with paying readers."

Articles from The New York Times no longer show up in the Apple News app, and the site has accused Apple of providing it "little control over business" and "little in the way of direct relationships with readers."

Apple has struggled to score deals with newspaper publishers for Apple News+ and so far has sites like The Wall Street Journal and The Los Angeles Times on board.

Article Link: Wall Street Journal Sticking With Apple News Because It Brings 'Genuinely Different Audience'

What I’ve been really hoping for is local. Local newspapers are DYING. If Apple could add a Local section to the News App, that would be a great service both to customers and the amazing journalists across the country.

 

[CarlJ]

What I’ve been really hoping for is local. Local newspapers are DYING. If Apple could add a Local section to the News App, that would be a great service both to customers and the amazing journalists across the country.

Where, though, do you expect they would get local news for every city on the planet?

 

[MacBH928]

Factual reporting known as journalism is largely dead. WSJ used to be a source of journalism, but it has started to shift. A mutiny of sorts happened in June where a group of unnamed staff petitioned for a significant change in reporting the news. Right or wrong, if you blend your ideology with reporting the news it is opinion and not "journalism".

• Honesty: journalists must be truthful. It is unacceptable to report information known to be false, or report facts in a misleading way to give a wrong impression;
• Independence and objectivity: journalists should avoid topics in which they have a financial or personal interest that would provide them a particular benefit in the subject matter, as that interest may introduce bias into their reporting, or give the impression of such bias. In cases where a journalist may have a specific financial or personal interest, the interest should be disclosed;
• Fairness: journalists must present facts with impartiality and neutrality, presenting other viewpoints and sides to a story where these exist. It is unacceptable to slant facts;
• Diligence: a journalist should gather and present pertinent facts to provide a good understanding of the subject reported;
• Accountability: a journalist must be accountable for their work, prepared to accept criticism and consequences.

While I agree with your points, this is impossible to achieve and have enough money to run a news reporting organization. Its just too expensive.

pre-internet days, many people would buy the newspaper or watch the channel, but today, people read headlines and opinions for free.

 

[thebroz]

I don't want opinions. I want dry, factual reports of what occurred. As soon an author tosses in colorful language there is a bias introduced.

OH! It was a horrific scene huh? When you tell me bad things are bad you pass judgement over what things are good.

Edit: Look at sports journalism to appreciate this. Read about your favorite team from their rivals home paper. Suddenly all those things that you were proud of are either missing, terrible, or they are used to explain why they aren't as good as they used to be.

I'm puzzled by your "opinion" because you don't have to read their opinion pages. Their editorial pages are CLEARLY presented as such, with many articles titled "OPINION|article subject". The WSJ has been VERY good about reporting news and writing opinion and keeping the two separate. Separate offices, separate management, different journalists, separate reporting. if you think their news is opinionated, you are mistaken. The Washington Post, CNN and NYT etc. present opinions and call it news, which is just not news journalism. The Wall Street Journal does a very good job of keeping the two separate. So, don't read their opinions if you don't like their opinions. Or, don't read the WSJ at all. I don't care.