On 13 December 2011 21:24, Kiran K Karthikeyan <kiran.karthike...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Bringing in the only point I was trying to make of people not wanting >> to pay for what *might* be good for them, I assume you expect doctors >> to chase down every body over 50 and give them colonoscopies for free, >> irrespective of whether the "patients" want the treatment or not? > > Uh-no. In my mind they're doing their job well if they treat those who do > come to them. Similarly, nobody who doesn't want to read a newspaper can be > well informed regardless of how well journos do their job.
I agree. So, let me try and clean up your analogy. People going to a doctor for medicine are analogous to people subscribing to a newspaper that does quality journalism. These people deserve what they are paying for -- good medicine/quality journalism. (Like Salil said, if enough people pay for good journalism, you will get good journalism.) On the other hand, if the sick people, instead of going to a doctor, go to the neighbour ice cream shop because chocolate ice cream makes them feel good for a while, your position appears to be that it is the fault of both the doctor and the ice cream vendor -- with the only people free of guilt being the ones choosing the ice cream shop over of the doctor as they are not burdened with having to take responsibility for their own actions. Venky (the Second).
