4 ms·

That's fine, but don't forget it pays for the bulk of journalism globally. What's your alternative revenue model?

by damian_ 9y ago

arpa 9y ago
Subscription. Paper copies. Can't compete? Not my problem.
- pferde 9y ago
  Pretty much this. It is their problem to figure out a way to deliver content in an acceptable and profitable way. The current way is clearly (starting to) being rejected by the Internet users.
kalleboo 9y ago
I'm fine with any of the Flattr, Spotify or Patreon models. But the newspapers still think they're competing against each other rather than their general obsolescence and so each one is charging like $10/mo for access to only their own content. If I wanted to pay for all the news sites I visit through Hacker News links alone I'd be paying over $100/mo
tomjen3 9y ago
That assumes there is a revenue model - which there probably isn't; ads can't be that business because it biases the news[fn:1], when I read a newspaper I read it through some aggregator[fn:2], which means I am not going to pay for any particular newspaper (because I would need twenty such subscriptions) and I can't buy a bundle (because it does not exist and probably doesn't contain the particular newspaper the link is to). Ultimately I think the next newspaper will probably come from Google, and be AI. [fn:1] Old newspapers may be excepted, as they have a long time to deal with this. I assume that buying ads in NYT can't change their editorial stances, but they are an exception. [fn:2] HN, reddit, facebook, twitter, etc.
- pferde 9y ago
  > and I can't buy a bundle (because it does not exist and probably doesn't contain the particular newspaper the link is to). Wouldn't some kind of syndication service work, where you subscribe to a custom bundle out of selection of available news sites, and the sites then get revenue based on how many readers included them in their subscription?
  - tomjen3 9y ago
    Even so, who is to say that the particular newspaper the article links to is included in that bundle? Or that it is included in the bundle of the other people commenting (yes that is moving the goal post, but I forgot to included it in the original)?
  - marcosdumay 9y ago
    It should work. That said, how willing are the newspapers to adopt a revenue plan that might work? From here, my impression is that nearly all of them are completely unwilling to change anything at all. Even their layout they can't bother to adapt for the web.
- yoz-y 9y ago
  What would be the Google’s business model then? If display ads go, their money well dries as well.
jim-jim-jim 9y ago
If the bulk of journalism outlets went out of business along with their advertisers, I'd consider that a win/win. I know that in the age of Trump we're supposed to venerate journalism as some kind of selfless civil duty, but the vast majority of it is throwaway punditry and apologia for an illegitimate order. Actual investigative work like the kind of stuff Shane Bauer has done would still have legs on subscription/donor based platforms.
- rayiner 9y ago
  > I know that in the age of Trump we're supposed to venerate journalism as some kind of selfless civil duty, but the vast majority of it is throwaway punditry and apologia for an illegitimate order. QFT. Journalism has been awful at least for decades. > Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know. - Michael Chrichton In a complex world, the very idea of generalist journalists is broken.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    From what I can tell, journalism has continually improved since the founding of the Republic. It's useful to correct unrealistic expectations we have about it: that its practitioners are selfless volunteers serving out of civic obligation. It's a profession like anything else, with good members and bad ones, almost always under the same masthead. I think it would be tough to argue that modern institutional journalism is somehow worse than that of, say, the World War 2 era. Crichton's "amnesia effect" is a vivid example of how people get this wrong. Are newspapers wrong about Palestine? Quite often. But it's not for the same reason that they're wrong about show business. Show business is a specialized beat with specialized reporters and not every newspaper has someone dedicated to it. Everyone understands that about reporting Palestine, but fewer people understand that about show business, and so Crichton sounds incisive when really he's just making a banal observation: different journalism outlets are strong on different topics.
petre 9y ago
Special interest groups and states already pay for the bulk of yellow journalism globally. It's more like propaganda influencing people's choices.
TagAsDelusion 9y ago
So if we get rid of it, that will go away? Promise?

That's fine, but don't forget it pays for the bulk of journalism globally. What's your alternative revenue model?

arpa 9y ago

Subscription. Paper copies. Can't compete? Not my problem.

pferde 9y ago
Pretty much this. It is their problem to figure out a way to deliver content in an acceptable and profitable way. The current way is clearly (starting to) being rejected by the Internet users.

kalleboo 9y ago

I'm fine with any of the Flattr, Spotify or Patreon models. But the newspapers still think they're competing against each other rather than their general obsolescence and so each one is charging like $10/mo for access to only their own content. If I wanted to pay for all the news sites I visit through Hacker News links alone I'd be paying over $100/mo

tomjen3 9y ago

That assumes there is a revenue model - which there probably isn't; ads can't be that business because it biases the news[fn:1], when I read a newspaper I read it through some aggregator[fn:2], which means I am not going to pay for any particular newspaper (because I would need twenty such subscriptions) and I can't buy a bundle (because it does not exist and probably doesn't contain the particular newspaper the link is to). Ultimately I think the next newspaper will probably come from Google, and be AI. [fn:1] Old newspapers may be excepted, as they have a long time to deal with this. I assume that buying ads in NYT can't change their editorial stances, but they are an exception. [fn:2] HN, reddit, facebook, twitter, etc.

pferde 9y ago
> and I can't buy a bundle (because it does not exist and probably doesn't contain the particular newspaper the link is to). Wouldn't some kind of syndication service work, where you subscribe to a custom bundle out of selection of available news sites, and the sites then get revenue based on how many readers included them in their subscription?
- tomjen3 9y ago
  Even so, who is to say that the particular newspaper the article links to is included in that bundle? Or that it is included in the bundle of the other people commenting (yes that is moving the goal post, but I forgot to included it in the original)?
- marcosdumay 9y ago
  It should work. That said, how willing are the newspapers to adopt a revenue plan that might work? From here, my impression is that nearly all of them are completely unwilling to change anything at all. Even their layout they can't bother to adapt for the web.
yoz-y 9y ago
What would be the Google’s business model then? If display ads go, their money well dries as well.

jim-jim-jim 9y ago

If the bulk of journalism outlets went out of business along with their advertisers, I'd consider that a win/win. I know that in the age of Trump we're supposed to venerate journalism as some kind of selfless civil duty, but the vast majority of it is throwaway punditry and apologia for an illegitimate order. Actual investigative work like the kind of stuff Shane Bauer has done would still have legs on subscription/donor based platforms.

rayiner 9y ago
> I know that in the age of Trump we're supposed to venerate journalism as some kind of selfless civil duty, but the vast majority of it is throwaway punditry and apologia for an illegitimate order. QFT. Journalism has been awful at least for decades. > Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know. - Michael Chrichton In a complex world, the very idea of generalist journalists is broken.
- tptacek 9y ago
  From what I can tell, journalism has continually improved since the founding of the Republic. It's useful to correct unrealistic expectations we have about it: that its practitioners are selfless volunteers serving out of civic obligation. It's a profession like anything else, with good members and bad ones, almost always under the same masthead. I think it would be tough to argue that modern institutional journalism is somehow worse than that of, say, the World War 2 era. Crichton's "amnesia effect" is a vivid example of how people get this wrong. Are newspapers wrong about Palestine? Quite often. But it's not for the same reason that they're wrong about show business. Show business is a specialized beat with specialized reporters and not every newspaper has someone dedicated to it. Everyone understands that about reporting Palestine, but fewer people understand that about show business, and so Crichton sounds incisive when really he's just making a banal observation: different journalism outlets are strong on different topics.

petre 9y ago

Special interest groups and states already pay for the bulk of yellow journalism globally. It's more like propaganda influencing people's choices.

TagAsDelusion 9y ago

So if we get rid of it, that will go away? Promise?