3 ms·
I don't buy into that anti capitalism argument. It suggests that people aren't aware of the value they receive through newspapers and a consumption based model
by jcfrei 8y ago
I don't buy into that anti capitalism argument. It suggests that people aren't aware of the value they receive through newspapers and a consumption based model is therefore not working. I do see a danger in monopolies (or even oligopolies) but that can be prevented by competition regulators. But apart from that it seems people simply don't value traditional newspapers enough to keep so many of them running.
- _bxg1 8y agoYou're right, they don't. But it's not about physical newspapers, it's about journalism itself. Journalism itself is not being funded. This is partly because internet platforms/adtech have broken its financing model. Of course it's possible for the ideologically-minded to counter this by donating to journalism organizations for their public service, without turning to the public sector. But people obviously aren't doing that (enough). The reality is that individuals often don't think in terms of a big enough picture to support abstract public goods with private donations. Capitalism would say "good, people apparently don't want those things, let them die". But "people don't think about it" and "it doesn't have value" are very different things.
- matt4077 8y agoIt seems plausible that many people do derive value from journalism without paying for it. Among those are, for example, people profiting from others making more informed choices at the ballot box, or being freed from corrupt politicians uncovered by newspapers they don’t subscribe to, or, more directly, getting some information for free on TV even though they are just piggybacking on some other medium’s investigation.