3 ms·

This is a perfect example of why a firewall between editorial and advertising departments in a news organization is not sufficient. I would really like to see a

This is a perfect example of why a firewall between editorial and advertising departments in a news organization is not sufficient. I would really like to see a subscription only news service exist that doesn't take any advertising dollars. It would make very clear that it serves the readership, not advertisers. Alas, I don't think enough people are willing to pay what it would take and media companies are too risk averse to even attempt it.

kolokolo 10y ago
How would you ensure that the news service doesn't accept side-channel donations for the "right" news? How would you ensure that the news service doesn't keep telling the subscribers what they want to hear?
- mcculley 10y ago
  The news service could have an independent accountant affirm that all revenue comes from subscribers. As for bias, this is not something I'm suggesting would be prevented. I'm only suggesting it would be a news organization incentivized to serve the readership and not advertisers.
fletchowns 10y ago
What about organizations like NPR and PBS? It seems like that is as close as you can get to a subscription only news service that doesn't take advertising dollars. Their news reporting is really top notch. Technically it's not a subscription, it's a donation. And technically they do make money with underwriting but I think user contributions make up the vast majority of their funding.
- mcculley 10y ago
  That's a good point. I was really only thinking of how for-profit news organizations could reorient themselves to serve their readership. There's no reason such organizations need to have be for-profit.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Both organisations' underwriting credits raise plenty of questions. For much of the 1970s and 1980s, major PBS programming was funded by oil companies (Mobil in particular, if you watched Masterpiece Theater). Today, Nova receives heavy funding from Koch sources. Even nonprofit sources are tainted -- the John Templeton Foundation (look it up) has a very specific agenda, and there is/was a two-part series, "The Real Adam Smith", which was essentially a straight-up, full-on propaganda piece put out by the Mont Pelerin Society / Atlas Network, funded by Templeton, and with Chicago PBS affiliate WTTW's name specifically attached to the production. The content is highly slanted, and I found (and find) the whole matter exceedingly questionable. I'm not saying there isn't a lot of good work coming through PBS, NPR, PRX, and similar sources. Or that the quality isn't, generally, vastly superior to commercial media. But that bar is set miles below floor level, and the problems with co-option of public media have been increasing with time. Part of that I attribute to "Woozle's Epistemic Paradox": because of a high percentage of the population being present, there is now substantial power to be had by influencing the discussions that take place. A problem which attaches to other (really, any) media, including online: BBSes, Usenet, Geocities, Facebook, Reddit, HN. https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/5wg0hp/when_epistemic_systems_gain_social_and_political/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/5wg0hp/when_ep...

kolokolo 10y ago

How would you ensure that the news service doesn't accept side-channel donations for the "right" news? How would you ensure that the news service doesn't keep telling the subscribers what they want to hear?

mcculley 10y ago
The news service could have an independent accountant affirm that all revenue comes from subscribers. As for bias, this is not something I'm suggesting would be prevented. I'm only suggesting it would be a news organization incentivized to serve the readership and not advertisers.

fletchowns 10y ago

What about organizations like NPR and PBS? It seems like that is as close as you can get to a subscription only news service that doesn't take advertising dollars. Their news reporting is really top notch. Technically it's not a subscription, it's a donation. And technically they do make money with underwriting but I think user contributions make up the vast majority of their funding.

mcculley 10y ago
That's a good point. I was really only thinking of how for-profit news organizations could reorient themselves to serve their readership. There's no reason such organizations need to have be for-profit.
dredmorbius 10y ago
Both organisations' underwriting credits raise plenty of questions. For much of the 1970s and 1980s, major PBS programming was funded by oil companies (Mobil in particular, if you watched Masterpiece Theater). Today, Nova receives heavy funding from Koch sources. Even nonprofit sources are tainted -- the John Templeton Foundation (look it up) has a very specific agenda, and there is/was a two-part series, "The Real Adam Smith", which was essentially a straight-up, full-on propaganda piece put out by the Mont Pelerin Society / Atlas Network, funded by Templeton, and with Chicago PBS affiliate WTTW's name specifically attached to the production. The content is highly slanted, and I found (and find) the whole matter exceedingly questionable. I'm not saying there isn't a lot of good work coming through PBS, NPR, PRX, and similar sources. Or that the quality isn't, generally, vastly superior to commercial media. But that bar is set miles below floor level, and the problems with co-option of public media have been increasing with time. Part of that I attribute to "Woozle's Epistemic Paradox": because of a high percentage of the population being present, there is now substantial power to be had by influencing the discussions that take place. A problem which attaches to other (really, any) media, including online: BBSes, Usenet, Geocities, Facebook, Reddit, HN. https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/5wg0hp/when_epistemic_systems_gain_social_and_political/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/5wg0hp/when_ep...