I've always been curious if a variation on a the cooperative model might work. I'm imagining something like a "stakeholder-owned media cooperative" where produc

I've always been curious if a variation on a the cooperative model might work. I'm imagining something like a "stakeholder-owned media cooperative" where producers (journalists, editors, etc) would share some kind of ownership stake with a base of dedicated subscribers. Paying $20/mo in dues, 300 subscriber-owners could support one journalist at $72,000. The incentive to join as a dues-paying member would be a voting stake in the editorial direction of the outlet. Most subscribers probably wouldn't want regular involvement in those decisions, but you might be able to pull off some kind of liquid democracy arrangement where subscribers could empower certain instantly recallable representatives on the editorial board. You could play with the variables to balance power/compensation in a way that is appealing to both parties: perhaps producer-owners get veto power, or can limit the set of options for editorial direction, or perhaps votes are weighted toward one party or the other. The primary goals would be twofold: 1) fund journalistm 2) generate trust by aligning the incentives of readership/editorial. The wider the base of subscribers, the more public buy-in, the more funding to expand the newsroom. You might even produce a positive externality: news that can also be consumed by passive readers, who could apply to become subscriber-owners if they become invested in the editorial direction. It'd be tough to bootstrap an organization like this without an injection of capital and loss of control. It'd be cool if a kickstarter-like platform existed where a threshold of supporters could sign on before the project kicked into gear.