Most people misunderstand how news organizations work. Reuters was a "gold standard" because they enforce a division between the business side that makes money, sells ads, and cooks up a business strategy, from the journalists who are shielded from those concerns as they attempt to report objectively. In many good news organizations, the two sides of the organization barely know each other, work on different floors, and do not share a cafeteria. So yeah, you get situations where a spokesperson for the business side refuses to comment for the news side (all news orgs cover their owners poorly if at all, including other orgs like Bloomberg).
Reuters has been running a distance second to Bloomberg in both financial news and data for well over a decade. It is a much older organization, and got its start when the British had an empire. You could say it covered the empire that covered the world.
I doubt that it has gone from "gold standard" to opinionated journalism in the last 2-3 years. In fact, the quality and veracity of its copy and reporting always varied from topic to topic, country to country.
This narrative of media decay is a weird euphoric recall for better days that did not exist. The press was always flawed. But now we attack it more amid the information chaos of social media.
I feel that they prefer to have 'select' readers to which they can sell (they or their advertisers) far more than the $35 per month.
Right now they got (guess) 20m(?) readers per day, and they know nothing about majority of them. With this, they cut our all the slackers/freeloaders (such as myself) and they get to focus on the 5m? 1m? 500k? To which they know are not freeloaders and they can go on to sell other services.
Edit: this is my interpretation of this move, a nice way to create the sweet spot on the pricing structure, and increase vertical sales.
Reuters has been running a distance second to Bloomberg in both financial news and data for well over a decade. It is a much older organization, and got its start when the British had an empire. You could say it covered the empire that covered the world.
I doubt that it has gone from "gold standard" to opinionated journalism in the last 2-3 years. In fact, the quality and veracity of its copy and reporting always varied from topic to topic, country to country.
This narrative of media decay is a weird euphoric recall for better days that did not exist. The press was always flawed. But now we attack it more amid the information chaos of social media.