3 ms·
> I guess this is better than bleeding millions/year but we can hardly call this a good business. Maybe real journalism just isn't profitable in a capitalist e
by ForHackernews 8y ago
> I guess this is better than bleeding millions/year but we can hardly call this a good business.
Maybe real journalism just isn't profitable in a capitalist economy. This model works for organisations like NPR and Propublica.
- diet_mtn_dew 8y agoNewspapers and magazines were profitable for centuries. Like many other industries, they've struggled to adapt to the new norms the Internet brought about.
- pmyteh 8y agoMany newspapers, but by no means all. British national newspapers have, as a class, lost money for decades - plenty of people have been willing to subsidise the losses in return for the influence of owning one - so the economics were bad (and now getting worse). Owning a monopoly city newspaper in the US, with a captive advertising market, was a lovely business until recently though.
- sievebrain 8y agoMany of their competitors have been profitable for a while now. There's no incompatibility between capitalism and "real journalism", the problem with the guardian is in fact their complete disinterest in capitalism - hence being a literal trust fund baby.