Grunge Roundup, June 2020

Hi, folks! Been a while since I rounded up some of the articles I write for Grunge.com articles, so here are a few fairly recent ones:

Grunge: The problematic truth about the origins of the Electoral College

One of the weirdest parts of U.S. democracy is the remarkably undemocratic Electoral College. As angry voters will tell you, two of the last three American presidents were elected despite losing the popular vote. Today, Time Magazine reports that 53% of voters support ending this bizarre institution. How did this nonsense get started, though?

Well, the first thing to understand about the Electoral College is that it was designed to be anti-democratic …

Read More: https://www.grunge.com/182662/the-problematic-truth-about-the-origins-of-the-electoral-college/?utm_campaign=clip

Grunge: Here’s how many people died during the bombing of Hiroshima

If you grew up in the United States, you’re familiar with a certain elementary school narrative regarding World War II, about how the U.S. triumphantly “ended the war” by dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The truth? Well, it’s a bit more complex, as usual.

Read More: https://www.grunge.com/202205/heres-how-many-people-died-during-the-bombing-of-hiroshima/?utm_campaign=clip

Grunge: The truth about ranked-choice voting

There’s no arguing that the 2020 Iowa caucus was a mess. However, in the hubbub about how undemocratic the caucus process really is, it’s worth noting that an alternative voting method has been making huge strides in the past few years, which combines the benefits of caucuses and traditional voting in one bright, shiny package: it’s called ranked-choice voting (or instant run-off voting), and it’s a system that allows people to easily vote for their top choice in a crowded field, irrespective of that candidate’s popularity, while also lending their support to other, presumably more popular candidates at the same time.

Here’s how it works.

Read More: https://www.grunge.com/191319/the-truth-about-ranked-choice-voting/?utm_campaign=clip

Grunge: The 1906 San Francisco earthquake was worse than you thought

Human civilization rests on a precarious foundation. People strive to overcome the elements, to build societies, and to assert themselves over nature, but the truth is, people are just one tiny part of a bigger whole, and the Earth — at any moment — can erupt in a rather volatile fashion. That said, while natural disasters are inherently uncontrollably, the human response to such disasters has often caused the most damage of all.

Read More: https://www.grunge.com/210885/the-1906-san-francisco-earthquake-was-worse-than-you-thought/?utm_campaign=clip

The Problem with Paywalls

Over the past few centuries, it’s been said many times, in many ways, how the cornerstone of democracy is a free press. For the sake of having a more free and just society, we also want an informed society. Newspapers, news websites, news stations, and so on must have the freedom to write about anyone, or anything, at any time, in order to hold the world’s most powerful institutions in check. In the same way that news institutions need to sharply critique the policies of other institutions, though, it’s equally important for citizens to be able to carefully scrutinize the news they read: to ensure that all news sources, from the New York Times to JoeBillysNews.com (not a real site!), use proper citations, follow journalistic standards, correctly present information, don’t misrepresent facts, and so on, in order to make sure that the public isn’t just informed, but accurately informed.

So, in that spirit, I have a critique: what’s the deal with paywalls?

For those who might not be familiar with the term, “paywalls” are what we call those screens which flash up when you’ve read a couple articles on a specific news site, displaying a message along the lines of, “You’ve read 2 of 3 free articles this month. Please subscribe.” Once you read all 3 (or however many) articles, the news site will then cease to display “free” articles until the following month. Basically, you get walled out. Kinda like this:

brickwall paywall news paper

Now, I understand the principle behind this. New sources are a business. Understandably, that business needs to support itself, a task which has become more challenging in this era of digital revolution.  The problem? Getting people to actively read the news can already be a challenge, and that number is only going to dwindle further if doing so requires coughing up a weekly or monthly subscription.

The truth is, we live in the age of free information. If a news site puts up a paywall, it doesn’t encourage people to subscribe: it turns them away. This results in lower readership, which in the long run, damages the business. Paywalls are an attempt to impose old standards upon new formats, and they don’t work. The bigger problem, though, is one of ethics. The “must pay if you want to read the news” model isn’t just out of date, it’s dangerous for democracy.

As a writer myself, I strongly believe that clear, informative, well-sourced news should be freely available to every single person, of any class, of any demographic, in order to promote a more educated society. Paywalls are a form of classism: they create a fiscal barrier between lower-income individuals and proper news sources. There are countless individuals and families out there who simply can’t afford a monthly subscription, because if it comes to choosing between food, medication, or a newspaper, basic needs are going to win the wallet battle. As a result, paywalls run the risk of sending potentially informed individuals into badly-sourced, less-refined news sites, thereby resulting in a less educated populace. Kind of goes against the spirit of the free press, doesn’t it?

We should want a strong free press, but we also need a press that provides free information, as well. While news sources need to find new ways to support themselves, the immense disadvantages of paywalls (both for moral and business reasons) prove that they are an ineffective method, as well as being problematic for society at large.

What do you all think?

Another year, another 600 or so cups of coffee…

Image

…and as 2014 spreads its wings, as the light blasts through the clouds (and a freezing, bone-chilling snow descends upon us here in New England), it’s time to get on with the year ahead.

There’s plenty to look forward to this year; I have several writing projects to keep me busy, and when I’m not busy writing I’m planning on doing some more traveling, reading, writing, movie-watching, socializing and coffee drinking.

Now, as far as this blog goes…

2013 was my first year here on WordPress – my first year meeting all of you guys on here, and my first time having a regular blog to give shape to, develop and nurture. 2014 will  be a year that allows me to deepen the connections I’ve made thus far, as well as continuing to write about the subjects that fascinate me – be they horror/sci-fi/comics genre-related, psychological, philosophical or whatever else might grab my attention.

In the meantime, it’s time to hop off of here and get back to my current writing projects…because I’ll warn you right now, there’s some big stuff coming up just over the horizon line!

Image