3 ms·

For the most part I agree. Some version of this has been discussed for years: basically a non-profit, non-commercial, bipartisan, transparent, independent, prof

For the most part I agree. Some version of this has been discussed for years: basically a non-profit, non-commercial, bipartisan, transparent, independent, professional journalism organization(s) using an endowment or donation-based funding model seems to be one of the best options at the moment. The cynics and trolls will attack the idea that it's impossible. Ignore them of course, it is possible but it will not be perfect, and it must be open about it not being perfect. The pragmatists have the more valid pushback: implementing such a solution is still too difficult, too expensive, it will take too long and it may crowd-out remaining journalists who are still in business while discouraging other solutions coming forward. I think it can start small. It has to. But the seeds how this could work can be seen in organizations like C-SPAN, National Public Radio and Wikipedia (Yes, Wikipedia is also not perfect but it's pretty damn good and arguably better than for-profit journalism right now in terms accuracy and staying close to the center on stories). Expanding on those models has potential if support for doing so can be rallied and the idea can be paid for. Who knows, this could turn into a US version of Pravda, if it even gets off the ground. Maybe. But when current journalism is already a biased disaster still going out of business, what's the harm in trying a little experiment and giving other options like this a try?

DanielBMarkham 10y ago
You know, baseball is quite the pastime in the US. Professional players make a lot of money and have their salaries paid for by wealthy folks. (Where they get their money is important, but let's ignore it for now) But there are a ton of folks playing baseball for a small salary -- the minor leagues. There's also scads of folks playing baseball recreationally. I don't see any reason professional news journalism couldn't be done in a similar way: more secure, rewarding jobs for those at the top of their fields paid for by a permanent endowment. A "middle league" that may only get internet like points or small payments for worth contributions. And tons of folks yukking it up on the sidelines doing the best they can and hoping one day to make it to the major leagues.
- hxta98596 10y ago
  I get what you're saying. Though I'm not sure baseball is the best example here as baseball is kind of broken right now. Look at the strikes, bargaining issues and communist cartel of baseball team owners needing to cooperate to keep it together, just barely. Other industries have similar development programs like pro baseball's farm and minor leagues. But all these are getting difficult to maintain. Pro baseball teams supporting minor leagues isn't what it used to be and they have become harder to afford. Still I agree there are many lessons to take from what baseball does well and not so well. I do agree a lesson from baseball is that the best in journalism should be highly paid for their work. Journalism needs to continue to attract and retain talented professionals who are compensated competitively. This is harder than it might sound though. Professional baseball players don't really have their salaries paid for by wealthy folks; rather players make a lot of money because of MLB television and media rights in the billions of dollars. Players play 162 games on television every season so TV commercials and expensive TV cable packages is what pays for baseball. One big advantage if the endowment model can be pulled off and funded as a source for journalists income is it could in theory help minimize the corruption and pandering to advertisers at the higher levels of journalism too.

DanielBMarkham 10y ago

You know, baseball is quite the pastime in the US. Professional players make a lot of money and have their salaries paid for by wealthy folks. (Where they get their money is important, but let's ignore it for now) But there are a ton of folks playing baseball for a small salary -- the minor leagues. There's also scads of folks playing baseball recreationally. I don't see any reason professional news journalism couldn't be done in a similar way: more secure, rewarding jobs for those at the top of their fields paid for by a permanent endowment. A "middle league" that may only get internet like points or small payments for worth contributions. And tons of folks yukking it up on the sidelines doing the best they can and hoping one day to make it to the major leagues.

hxta98596 10y ago
I get what you're saying. Though I'm not sure baseball is the best example here as baseball is kind of broken right now. Look at the strikes, bargaining issues and communist cartel of baseball team owners needing to cooperate to keep it together, just barely. Other industries have similar development programs like pro baseball's farm and minor leagues. But all these are getting difficult to maintain. Pro baseball teams supporting minor leagues isn't what it used to be and they have become harder to afford. Still I agree there are many lessons to take from what baseball does well and not so well. I do agree a lesson from baseball is that the best in journalism should be highly paid for their work. Journalism needs to continue to attract and retain talented professionals who are compensated competitively. This is harder than it might sound though. Professional baseball players don't really have their salaries paid for by wealthy folks; rather players make a lot of money because of MLB television and media rights in the billions of dollars. Players play 162 games on television every season so TV commercials and expensive TV cable packages is what pays for baseball. One big advantage if the endowment model can be pulled off and funded as a source for journalists income is it could in theory help minimize the corruption and pandering to advertisers at the higher levels of journalism too.