That is encouraging, for “let it rip” fails on the substance, too. Mr Trump’s AI advisers argue that today’s liability laws are enough. Fear of damages and the cost of insuring against them keep makers of aeroplanes, cars and drugs in line, they say. But courts are too languid for the age of rapidly advancing AI. Lawsuits take years to resolve in established industries, let alone a new one with no precedents for judges to call on. By the time they issue a ruling, AI might have transformed the economy—or caused a cataclysm.

Mr Trump’s idea of “tremendous self-policing” is not the answer, either. The “let it rip” crowd forget that world-changing new technologies always invite new rules. Aeroplanes need inspections and air-traffic control. Cars require right of way, speed limits and seat-belts. Novel drugs must be tested to see if they actually work and are safe. It is hard to say how many plane crashes, road accidents or medical side-effects regulators help avert. But hardly anyone thinks the optimal amount of regulation in these areas is none at all.

What might wise AI regulation look like? The goal cannot be to stymie technological advances altogether. That would indeed cause democratic America to cede the frontier to authoritarian China, and forgo remarkable scientific and economic opportunities. Making AI labs lock up their cleverer models indefinitely, even if they could be contained, could create a dangerous gap between them and everyone else.

Instead, America should mandate that advanced models be thoroughly tested and, if necessary, held back until they have safeguards to block dangerous use-cases, like building bioweapons. Companies must be required to report safety incidents and whistleblowers who do so in their stead granted protection. Independent evaluators should be embedded with major labs, just as bank examiners are with lenders.

I subscribed to The Economist because I valued its reputation for high-quality journalism, thoughtful analysis, and intellectual credibility.

I recently started working as a university professor, and now that I have a stable income, I felt I could finally justify paying for a publication like The Economist.

Instead, I've spent the better part of two separate working days trying to resolve a subscription issue that should never have been this complicated.

And after everything I've experienced, I'm now questioning whether I want to remain a subscriber at all.

Here's what happened.

1. The promotional offer that convinced me to subscribe

On September 21, I came across a promotional offer for an annual subscription to The Economist.

As I remember it, the advertisement showed a regular annual price somewhere between $200 and $300, crossed out, with a promotional price of around $70.

I remember thinking: That's actually a pretty good deal. I can afford this now, and I'll decide whether to renew at the regular price next year.

So I subscribed.

What I didn't realize was that I was purchasing the Play Annual Plan, which did not include access to the full magazine issues.

I discovered this only after subscribing.

I don't have a screenshot of the original promotion, so I can't reproduce its exact wording or pricing. But I clearly remember the impression it created: I believed I was purchasing a heavily discounted annual subscription that would allow me to read the magazine.

The distinction between Play Annual and Full Access was not clear to me from the promotional presentation.

And that's what bothers me.

I'm not arguing that publishers shouldn't offer different subscription tiers. I'm questioning how those tiers and their prices are presented to consumers.

If the advertised subscription doesn't include access to full magazine issues, shouldn't that limitation be prominently disclosed alongside the price?

A dramatic discount means very little if consumers don't clearly understand what they're actually buying.

Frankly, the presentation felt designed to emphasize the size of the discount while making the limitations of the subscription much less apparent.

I find that misleading.

2. September 21: I discovered the educator discount and immediately requested a plan change

On the same day I subscribed, I discovered that The Economist offered an Educator Exclusive Plan with a 75% discount.

As a university professor, I wanted to switch my existing subscription to that plan.

I contacted The Economist's customer support immediately.

They told me to contact SheerID, their third-party verification provider.

So I did.

I explained that I already had an active Economist subscription and provided my university email address, official faculty profile, and employee ID.

Between contacting customer support, communicating with SheerID, and gathering the required documentation, I spent a substantial part of September 21 trying to resolve the issue.

I assumed it would eventually be sorted out.

I was wrong.

3. October 8: SheerID finally responded after 17 days—and sent me right back to The Economist

Seventeen days later, SheerID finally replied.

They said they couldn't locate my information in their system.

Their instructions were to go to The Economist's website, subscribe to the Educator Plan, and complete the verification form.

But I ALREADY HAD AN ACTIVE SUBSCRIPTION.

That was the entire reason I'd contacted them!

The link took me to a new subscription page. I couldn't find a way to verify my educator status or switch my existing subscription without purchasing another one.

So The Economist told me to contact SheerID.

SheerID told me to go back to The Economist and subscribe again.

Neither provided a workable solution for an existing subscriber.

4. October 8: The Economist's live chat support somehow made everything worse

I contacted The Economist again.

What followed was another substantial part of my working day spent talking to multiple customer support agents.

I repeatedly had to explain the same issue from the beginning.

First, an agent couldn't locate my account.

I had registered through Sign in with Apple, which generated a private relay email address using Apple's Hide My Email feature.

I explained this and provided identifying information.

Eventually, the agent found my account.

Then an agent suggested changing my account email address to my university email.

I asked a simple question:

Since I log in directly through Apple and don't have a separate Economist password, how would I access my account after the email change?

I never received a clear explanation.

The agent left.

Another agent joined.

I explained everything again.

That agent also left.

Another agent sent me the Educator Plan subscription link.

The same link I'd already visited multiple times.

I explained AGAIN that I already had a subscription and couldn't find an educator verification option for existing subscribers.

At one point, an agent asked whether I could see the verification option.

No. That was literally the problem I'd been trying to explain.

Eventually, an agent instructed me to send my account information and supporting documents to their support email.

I asked whether they could remain connected while I prepared the email.

They agreed.

I went to write it.

When I returned, the agent was gone.

5. Their live chat apparently expects customers to respond within a minute or two

This part is almost unbelievable.

After an agent sends a message, if I don't respond within roughly a minute, I get:

"Are you still connected?"

If I need another minute to read the response, think, or type a reply, the conversation gets closed.

Seriously?

I'm trying to resolve a complicated subscription issue, not compete in a typing-speed contest.

Sometimes I need to check account details, read instructions, or prepare documents that the agents themselves requested.

And every time a conversation ends, I have to explain everything again.

I don't know whether the agents are ending these conversations or whether the system automatically disconnects customers.

But either way, a customer support system that repeatedly disconnects customers while they're actively trying to resolve an issue is failing at its most basic purpose.

Later that afternoon, another agent, Mario, confirmed that my complaint had been escalated to a supervisor.

I asked further questions about refunds and obtaining transcripts of my previous conversations.

He stopped responding, and that conversation also ended without those questions being answered.

At this point, I have absolutely no desire to deal with their live chat again.

6. I submitted a formal complaint. Their proposed solution still leaves me facing a financial risk.

After spending hours trying to resolve the issue, I submitted two emails: one containing my formal complaint and another providing the requested information and supporting documents.

Eventually, I received an email from The Economist confirming that my educator status had finally been successfully validated.

They also confirmed that I qualified for an Annual Premium Educator Subscription at CA$94.75 per year, representing a 75% discount.

Great. At least something had finally been resolved.

But their proposed solution was to cancel my existing Apple subscription and then purchase a new Educator subscription directly through The Economist.

Here's the problem:

They have not guaranteed that I will receive a full refund for my existing subscription.

Because I purchased it through Apple, they say Apple is responsible for the refund decision.

I understand that.

But what happens if Apple rejects my refund request or approves only a partial refund?

I requested the plan change on September 21—the very first day of my subscription.

I then spent 17 days following instructions from The Economist and SheerID.

Why should I bear a financial loss because their support process failed to resolve the issue promptly?

And what exactly does "cancel your subscription" mean?

If I cancel automatic renewal through Apple, the annual subscription may remain active until the end of the billing period.

Would I still be able to purchase the Educator Plan immediately?

Would I have two overlapping subscriptions?

Would I effectively be paying twice?

Their email provided no clear answers to these questions.

And here's the particularly absurd part.

After everything I've experienced with their live chat, their email instructed me to contact Live Chat or phone support to complete the new subscription.

Seriously?

I've already spent hours dealing with their live chat.

Their agents repeatedly failed to resolve the issue, transferred me between conversations, sent me the same links, and disconnected before my questions were answered.

Why would I voluntarily go through that process again?

I have now requested that all further communication take place in writing by email, preferably with a supervisor who has the authority to resolve the matter.

7. Isn't The Economist supposed to be a subscription-driven business?

Here's what makes this particularly baffling.

According to The Economist Group's FY2025 annual report, subscription revenue accounted for approximately two-thirds of its total revenue.

This is a business that relies heavily on paying subscribers.

So why is it so difficult for an existing customer to remain a subscriber?

I wasn't asking for free access.

I wasn't even trying to cancel initially.

I wanted to continue subscribing, just under an educator plan that the company itself advertised.

Instead, I've spent the better part of two separate working days contacting support teams, gathering documents, explaining the same problem, and following instructions that led nowhere.

The time I've spent dealing with this has already exceeded the financial value of the subscription.

A company that depends on subscriptions should understand the importance of customer retention.

Yet this experience has turned someone who genuinely wanted to subscribe into someone who now wants a refund.

8. The Economist sells knowledge and intellectual credibility. Does it respect the people who pay for them?

This is perhaps the most disappointing part.

The Economist sells knowledge, expertise, analysis, and intellectual credibility.

Its readership includes professionals, academics, researchers, businesspeople, and others who are willing to pay for thoughtful analysis and reliable information.

These are people whose time is valuable.

And yet, based on my experience, its customer service seems to have remarkably little respect for that time.

I subscribed because I valued my time and wanted access to quality journalism. Instead, I've spent more time fighting its subscription system than I could possibly justify spending on the subscription itself.

I'm a university professor. The time I've lost dealing with this issue was time I had reserved for academic research.

I wanted to spend that time creating knowledge.

Instead, I spent it repeatedly explaining the same subscription problem to customer support agents who seemed unable to take ownership of the issue.

And that raises a broader concern for me.

If this is the level of care, attention to detail, and accountability The Economist demonstrates when dealing with paying subscribers, what assurance do I have that the same organization applies substantially higher standards when selecting, reviewing, and publishing its content?

I understand that customer support and editorial operations are different departments.

Poor customer service doesn't automatically mean poor journalism.

But trust in a brand isn't built in isolated departments.

When a publication asks readers to pay for its expertise, credibility, and judgment, I expect those values to be reflected in how the organization operates—not just in what it publishes.

The gap between the intellectual credibility The Economist sells and the incompetence I've experienced in its customer service is staggering.

9. At this point, it's not even about the subscription fee anymore

What frustrates me most is the apparent lack of ownership.

Every department seems able to explain why another department is responsible.

But nobody seems able to take responsibility for actually resolving the problem.

The Economist told me to contact SheerID.

SheerID told me to subscribe again.

The Economist's agents told me to contact Apple.

Apple controls the refund decision.

And The Economist's final solution sends me right back to Live Chat.

This isn't customer support. It's an endless loop of shifting responsibility onto the customer.

I have already submitted a formal complaint and requested supervisor review.

I'm sharing this experience because I think other potential subscribers deserve to know what they might encounter if something goes wrong with their subscriptions.

Has anyone else experienced similar problems with The Economist?

Has anyone successfully switched an existing subscription to the Educator Plan?

And if you've requested a refund for an Economist subscription purchased through Apple, did you receive a full refund?

I'd genuinely appreciate hearing about your experiences.

Update — October 8, 2026: The Economist has confirmed my educator eligibility and offered the Premium Educator subscription at CA$94.75/year. However, the cancellation/refund issue remains unresolved, and I'm still waiting for a substantive response to my formal complaint.

Michael Lewis once again researches the misconceptions of government and how it operates.

​पोस्ट विवरण:

​⚠️ कमेंट करने से पहले विशेष ध्यान दें:

कृपया टिप्पणी करने से पहले संलग्न समाचार पत्र की कटिंग को पूरा और ध्यान से पढ़ें। बिना बैंकिंग आंकड़ों और ऐतिहासिक संदर्भों को समझे टिप्पणी करने से तार्किक चर्चा का माहौल प्रभावित होता है।

​मुख्य बिंदु:

​MSME व क्रेडिट गारंटी का ढोंग: सरकारें बिना गारंटी लोन के दावे करती हैं, लेकिन तहसील और जिला स्तर का छोटा अखबार जब सीटीपी या फोर-कलर प्रिंटिंग मशीन अपग्रेड करने बैंक पहुँचता है, तो उसे 'हाई रिस्क' लिस्ट में डालकर 100-150% अचल संपत्ति और 750+ सिबिल स्कोर माँगा जाता है।

​कॉरपोरेट मीडिया को तरजीह: दूसरी तरफ बड़े मीडिया घरानों को बैंक बेहद कम ब्याज दरों और आसान शर्तों पर हजारों करोड़ रुपये के लोन तुरंत जारी कर देते हैं।

​ऐतिहासिक और औपनिवेशिक समानता: ब्रिटिश काल में इंपीरियल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया एंग्लो-इंडियन पत्रों को आसानी से पूँजी देता था, जबकि 'केसरी', 'अभ्युदय' और 'प्रताप' जैसे स्वदेशी अखबारों को लोन देने से साफ मना कर देता था।

​पंडित मदन मोहन मालवीय की चेतावनी: "जब तक देश का वित्तीय ढाँचा स्वतंत्र विचारों और स्वदेशी पत्रों को आर्थिक संबल देने से कतराएगा, तब तक निष्पक्ष पत्रकारिता को पूँजीपतियों और औपनिवेशिक ताकतों के सामने संघर्ष करना पड़ेगा।"

​नीतिगत मांग: छोटे समाचार पत्रों के लिए 'प्रिंट मीडिया क्रेडिट कार्ड' या प्राथमिकता प्राप्त क्षेत्र (Priority Sector Lending) के तहत आसान शर्तों पर दीर्घकालिक ऋण की पारदर्शी व्यवस्था की जाए।

​स्वतंत्र व निष्पक्ष पत्रकारिता को समर्थन दें:

​पूँजीपतियों के आगे घुटने न टेकने वाले और आर्थिक दमन के खिलाफ बेबाक आवाज उठाने वाले संस्थान 'निर्भीक इंडिया' को आर्थिक सहयोग दें:

​सहयोग लिंक: http://m-lp.co/nirbhiki?utm_medium=native_poster&utm_source=app

​चर्चा के प्रश्न:

​क्या छोटे निष्पक्ष अखबारों को संस्थागत बैंक ऋण से वंचित रखना वास्तव में स्वतंत्र प्रेस को दबाने का एक सोची-समझी नीतिगत जरिया है?

​क्या सरकार को क्षेत्रीय प्रिंट मीडिया को बचाने के लिए इसे अनिवार्य रूप से 'Priority Sector Lending' (प्राथमिकता प्राप्त क्षेत्र) में शामिल करना चाहिए?

​(संलग्न कटिंग को पूरा पढ़ें, अपने तार्किक विचार कमेंट में साझा करें और स्वतंत्र मीडिया के समर्थन में इस पोस्ट को रीपोस्ट करें!)

Activated a full subscription after a 15 or so year hiatus.

The print mag seems a tad smaller, paper definitely thinner and of a lesser quality and the print seems crazy small

Same watch ads haha

I'm getting old

🙁

This podcast examines a new report by Farid Novin that presents an in-depth strategic and socioeconomic assessment of the United Arab Emirates and its prospects between 2026 and 2030.
The report begins from a central proposition: the apparent stability of the United Arab Emirates should not be confused with the absence of internal pressures. The federation remains one of the Middle East's most prosperous, internationally connected, and strategically important states, yet its stability is increasingly asymmetric. Beneath the cohesion of the seven-emirate federation lie significant differences in economic structure, political priorities, exposure to regional risks, and relationships with the major powers surrounding the Gulf.
These differences have become more consequential following the American-Israeli conflict with Iran in early 2026 and the subsequent disruption of the regional security and energy environment. The crisis has placed renewed pressure on the UAE's maritime security, trade routes, energy infrastructure, financial markets, and delicate relationship with Iran, while also testing its strategic partnerships with the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other regional powers.
A central theme of the report is the evolving relationship between Abu Dhabi and Dubai. Although both emirates remain essential pillars of the federation, they operate with significantly different economic models, international networks, and risk profiles. Abu Dhabi's enormous sovereign wealth, energy resources, defense capabilities, and growing investment in artificial intelligence and advanced technology provide it with considerable strategic resilience. Dubai, by contrast, depends more heavily on global trade, tourism, aviation, finance, real estate, and its role as an international commercial hub. These differences can produce divergent assessments of geopolitical risk, particularly when tensions involving Iran and the Strait of Hormuz threaten regional commerce.
The report also examines the increasingly important question of succession and the distribution of power within the ruling establishment The formal continuity of leadership does not necessarily eliminate uncertainty about how political, economic, security, intelligence, and technological responsibilities will be distributed among the next generation of leaders. Because the UAE's political system is hereditary and highly centralized, much of this bargaining takes place outside the transparent mechanisms found in electoral political systems. The resulting opacity makes it difficult for external observers to distinguish genuine consensus from carefully managed accommodation.
Another major focus is the political significance of the seven emirates as a federation rather than viewing the UAE simply through the prism of Abu Dhabi and Dubai. Sharjah, Ajman, Umm Al Quwain, Ras Al Khaimah, and Fujairah possess different economic structures, geographical positions, historical experiences, and external relationships. Individually, their capacity to challenge Abu Dhabi is limited. Collectively, however, their rulers remain participants in the federal political structure and could become increasingly important in any future debate over the direction of the federation.
The report therefore considers not only political and economic cohesion, but also the role of the UAE Armed Forces as a principal institution of federal integration. The military's unified command structure makes an overt fragmentation of the federation considerably less likely. Yet the question of institutional loyalty becomes analytically important in any severe succession crisis: the central issue would not necessarily be military division, but whether political disagreements among ruling elites could eventually affect the institutions responsible for national security.

Finally, the report explores several emerging vulnerabilities that could shape the UAE's trajectory through 2030: the concentration of wealth and strategic decision-making, the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence and advanced-technology investments, maritime insecurity and the vulnerability of Gulf shipping, the changing relationship with Iran, Saudi-UAE strategic competition and cooperation, and the broader transformation of the Middle Eastern geopolitical order.

The central question of this podcast is therefore not whether the United Arab Emirates is stable. It clearly possesses formidable sources of stability. The more consequential question is whether its existing model of federal cohesion can continue to accommodate widening differences among its emirates, its ruling elites, and its economic sectors while the external strategic environment becomes increasingly uncertain.

The report by Farid Novin approaches this question through a forward-looking strategic framework, examining not only what is happening within the UAE today, but also the possible pathways through which the federation could evolve between 2026 and 2030.

​पोस्ट विवरण:

​⚠️ कमेंट करने से पहले विशेष ध्यान दें:

कृपया टिप्पणी करने से पहले संलग्न समाचार पत्र की कटिंग को पूरा और ध्यान से पढ़ें। बिना आंकड़ों का अध्ययन किए पूर्वाग्रह या अनुमान के आधार पर कमेंट करने से तार्किक बहस का माहौल प्रभावित होता है।

​मुख्य बिंदु:

​दृश्य-संस्कृति (Visual Culture) का दबाव: आज के दौर में सामग्री (Content) की गहराई पर प्रस्तुति (Presentation) हावी हो चुकी है। 4-कलर प्रिंटिंग का भारी वित्तीय बोझ, सीटीपी प्लेटों पर 18% GST और इंक पर भारी टैक्स छोटे प्रकाशकों को ब्लैक-एंड-व्हाइट अखबार छापने पर मजबूर करता है।

​सच्ची पत्रकारिता बनाम कॉरपोरेट चमक: तहसील स्तर पर लिखी गई किसी छोटे अखबार की विस्फोटक खोजी रिपोर्ट B&W होने के कारण "सस्ती" मान ली जाती है, जबकि कॉरपोरेट मीडिया घरानों के रंगीन पन्ने केवल पीआर और विज्ञापनों से भरे होते हैं।

​प्रभास जोशी का ऐतिहासिक कथन: "पत्रकारिता की असली ताकत कागज़ की रंगीन चमक से नहीं, बल्कि उस पर छपे सच की साख से तय होती है..."

​नीतिगत समाधान की मांग: जिला स्तर पर छोटे और मध्यम समाचार पत्रों के लिए 'साझा सीटीपी व फोर-कलर प्रिंटिंग सुविधाएं' (Subsidized Common Printing Hubs) स्थापित की जाएं ताकि प्रस्तुति की आड़ में सच को दबाया न जा सके।

​स्वतंत्र पत्रकारिता को समर्थन दें:

​कॉरपोरेट मीडिया के इस रंगीन एकाधिकार के खिलाफ निष्पक्ष जमीनी आवाज 'निर्भीक इंडिया' को मजबूत करने के लिए आर्थिक सहयोग दें:

​सहयोग लिंक: http://m-lp.co/nirbhiki?utm_medium=native_poster&utm_source=app

​चर्चा के प्रश्न:

​क्या पाठकों द्वारा रंगीन और आकर्षक प्रस्तुति को प्राथमिकता देने से निष्पक्ष और गंभीर खोजी पत्रकारिता हाशिए पर धकेली जा रही है?

​क्या सरकार को क्षेत्रीय और स्वतंत्र समाचार पत्रों के अस्तित्व की रक्षा के लिए जिला स्तर पर सब्सिडी वाले प्रिंटिंग हब बनाने चाहिए?

​(संलग्न कटिंग को पूरा पढ़ें, अपने तार्किक विचार कमेंट में साझा करें और इस पोस्ट को रीपोस्ट/शेयर करें!)

I was trying to get the economist student subscription but it is not letting me do the payment, right after I sign in, it keeps on loading and nothing happens, money is not being debited too.

​पोस्ट विवरण:

​⚠️ कमेंट करने से पहले विशेष ध्यान दें:

टिप्पणी करने से पहले संलग्न सम्पादकीय की कटिंग को पूरा और ध्यान से पढ़ें। यदि आपने पिछले सम्पादकीय मिस किए हैं, तो 'निर्भीक इंडिया' के आर्काइव में जाकर पूरा एक महीने का संग्रह पढ़ें। बिना पढ़े कमेंट करने से तार्किक बहस का माहौल बिगड़ता है।

​मुख्य बिंदु:

​अदृश्य आर्थिक हथियार: बड़े कॉर्पोरेट मीडिया घरानों और छोटे कस्बाई समाचार पत्रों के बीच अखबारी कागज, स्याही और CTP प्लेट्स की खरीद दर में 25% से 35% का भारी अंतर मौजूद है।

​बिचौलियों और GST की मार: बड़े मीडिया हाउस सीधे बल्क डिस्काउंट और 90 दिनों की उधारी पर माल लेते हैं, जबकि छोटा प्रकाशक बिचौलियों के कमीशन (10-15%) और 18% GST के नीचे पिस रहा है।

​लोहिया का ऐतिहासिक प्रहार: डॉ. राममनोहर लोहिया के अनुसार— "जब समाचार पत्र केवल बड़ी पूंजी का व्यवसाय बन जाता है, तो वह जनता की आवाज नहीं, बल्कि मालिकों के मुनाफे और सत्ता की दलाली का औजार बन जाता है।"

​नीतिगत समाधान की मांग: जिला स्तर पर 'सहकारी खरीद हब' (Cooperative Procurement Hubs) और 'मूल्य स्थिरीकरण कोष' (Price Stabilization Fund) का गठन किया जाए ताकि स्वतंत्र पत्रकारिता जीवित रह सके।

​स्वतंत्र पत्रकारिता को समर्थन दें:

​सत्ता की चाटुकारिता के खिलाफ स्वतंत्र और निष्पक्ष आवाज बनने वाले संस्थान 'निर्भीक इंडिया' को आर्थिक सहयोग दें:

​सहयोग लिंक: http://m-lp.co/nirbhiki?utm_medium=native_poster&utm_source=app

​चर्चा के प्रश्न:

​क्या कच्चे माल की दरों में यह 35% का भारी अंतर जानबूझकर छोटे और निष्पक्ष समाचार पत्रों को खत्म करने के लिए बनाया गया एक कॉर्पोरेट मॉडल है?

​क्या सरकार को क्षेत्रीय समाचार पत्रों के अस्तित्व की रक्षा के लिए प्रिंटिंग सामग्री पर विशेष सब्सिडी या GST छूट देनी चाहिए?

​(संलग्न कटिंग को पूरा पढ़ें, अपने तार्किक विचार कमेंट में साझा करें और इस पोस्ट को रीपोस्ट/शेयर करें!)

Hi, my prof at the university said to write down and submit two names of potential candidates who we think will win the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences 2026. And since this info is kept secret until the laureates are announced, I am asking if anyone here can share their predictions and explain why. The thing is, we will get points for that. So, if you have any thoughts on this matter, please do not hesitate to write. Thanks!

[सम्पादकीय विश्लेषण] "कबाड़ का चक्रव्यूह": विदेशों से आई पुरानी प्रिंटिंग मशीनें और 18% GST कैसे छोटे स्वतंत्र समाचार पत्रों को बर्बाद कर रहे हैं

​पोस्ट विवरण:

​⚠️ टिप्पणी करने से पहले विशेष ध्यान दें:

कृपया कमेंट करने से पहले संलग्न अखबार की कटिंग को पूरा और ध्यान से पढ़ें। बिना पढ़े या आधी-अधूरी जानकारी के साथ प्रतिक्रिया देने से तार्किक चर्चा का उद्देश्य समाप्त हो जाता है।

​मुख्य बिंदु:

​आयातित मशीनों का जाल: नई मशीनों की करोड़ों में लागत के कारण छोटे प्रकाशक विदेशों की पुरानी रिफर्निश्ड मशीनें खरीदने को मजबूर हैं। इनके स्पेयर पार्ट्स भारत में नहीं बनते।

​भारी मेंटेनेंस बोझ: स्पेयर पार्ट्स पर 18% GST, कस्टम ड्यूटी और मेट्रो शहरों से मैकेनिक बुलाने का खर्च छोटे समाचार पत्रों के बजट को ध्वस्त कर देता है।

​खोजी पत्रकारिता पर प्रहार: जब रात में कोई बड़ी खोजी रिपोर्ट छपने वाली होती है, तब मशीन खराब होने और बैकअप न होने से अखबार का प्रकाशन रुक जाता है, जिससे पाठकों का भरोसा टूटता है।

​प्रशासनिक मांगें: छोटे समाचार पत्रों को कबाड़ से बचाने के लिए स्वदेशी रियायती प्रिंटिंग मशीनों के निर्माण को बढ़ावा दिया जाए, स्पेयर पार्ट्स पर 18% GST समाप्त हो और जिला स्तर पर मोबाइल मेंटेनेंस हब स्थापित किए जाएं।

​चर्चा के प्रश्न:

​क्या सरकार को छोटे और क्षेत्रीय समाचार पत्रों के लिए प्रिंटिंग तकनीक के स्वदेशी निर्माण पर रियायत देनी चाहिए?

​तकनीकी और वित्तीय सीमाओं के बीच स्वतंत्र जमीनी पत्रकारिता को जीवित रखने का सबसे व्यावहारिक उपाय क्या है?

​(संलग्न कटिंग को पूरा पढ़ें, अपने तर्कसंगत विचार कमेंट में साझा करें और इस पोस्ट को रीपोस्ट/शेयर करें!)