6 ms·

Tech's position on the issue of how to fund journalism online is fundamentally incoherent. After 20 years of experiments, there are only two models that have b

Tech's position on the issue of how to fund journalism online is fundamentally incoherent. After 20 years of experiments, there are only two models that have been consistently proven to work: restricting access to paying customers only (a.k.a. paywalling), and open access combined with heavy, invasive advertising (both the traditional kind, and more insidious kinds like clickbait headlines and sponsored content). That's it. Those are the only models anyone's found that don't lead to bankruptcy. The problem is that tech insists that both these models are morally unacceptable. Put up a paywall, and you'll get a parade of tech influencers denouncing you as a greedy elitist. Don't put up a paywall, and you'll get the same parade of tech influencers denouncing you as a purveyor of spyware and clickbait. OK, fine. So what then does tech propose these publications do, exactly? Are they supposed to just lay down and die? Because unless someone can come up with a third model that actually works, that's the only option left after you rule out every other option that works. You can see this incoherence play out in every HN comment thread about journalism. The New York Times consistently produces excellent journalism; but they keep that journalism behind a paywall, so they are Evil. Buzzfeed doesn't have a paywall, but it produces lots of clickbait and sponsored content[1], so they are Evil too. The only publications that aren't Evil, it turns out, are the ones that are going out of business. [1] Although they also produce an increasing amount of very good journalism these days alongside it. Which, of course, the clickbait and sponsored content pay for.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
It's important to also recognize that I often see sentiments on HN (not that this is a majority, but often enough that it isn't ultra-downvoted) that journalism as an industry is dying, as it should be because journalism is fundamentally flawed. That is to say, yes, people do believe journalism should die.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
PretzelFisch 7y ago
There is the NPR, PBS and wikipedia model. Not for profit companies that live off of the public's donations. Also the BBC model
- macleginn 7y ago
  It's hard to have more than one BBC in a given country.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  The BBC model is awful. No matter how officially they say they're neutral, they're undeniably biased and it's not even their fault. It's quite obvious that it's impossible to criticise the government neutrally and fairly when you are effectively a branch of government.
Qwertystop 7y ago
A third route is to offer journalism or other content for free while soliciting donations. That works for Wikipedia, it works for NPR, and it works for a wide variety of smaller writers and artists through Patreon. There's also the advertising-only-if-you-don't-have-a-subscription model, as on Twitch (which may or may not have journalism, depending on what exists that I haven't seen and on whether you count talk shows on current-events).
- Analemma_ 7y ago
  > That works for Wikipedia Wikipedia doesn't do any original reporting, it (essentially) uses volunteer work to aggregate/summarize original research that other people have done. That original research has to get paid for. Or in other words, if all journalism ceases to exist, suddenly Wikipedia won't be able to function either. > it works for NPR NPR is also supported by advertising in a big way, we've all just sort of collectively agreed not to call it that. Technically NPR has "underwriters" and not "advertisers", and they run "underwriting segments" instead of "ads", but apart from a couple of FCC rules mandating stricter truth laws than normal ads, there's not really any difference. > as on Twitch The vast majority of Twitch broadcasters do not earn enough to make a living, and the ones who do generally get that way by being flashy, vapid and obnoxious enough to attract a cult following. I don't want this model to carry over to journalism. In conclusion, I don't think your comment offers any real evidence for a possible "third way" in journalism.
  - magduf 7y ago
    >NPR is also supported by advertising in a big way, we've all just sort of collectively agreed not to call it that. This isn't completely true. NPR-associated stations regularly hold donation drives, and solicit donations from private individuals to help them meet their expenses. It's a significant part of their operating budget. Of course, they also have "messages from the sponsors" too, though not nearly as many as in commercial radio. Regular journalism could do the same thing if they wanted to.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Individual public radio stations, and NPR itelf, have different funding mechanisms. Much of NPR's revenue comes from member stations, with details at NPR. For individual stations, a mix of funding sources is generally represented. KQED, San Francisco's PBS/NPR affiliate, familiar to many HN readers, and the most-listened to radio station in the US, has a breakdown as follows: - Contributions & Membership Fees: 56% - Underwriting & General Grants: 21% - Community Service Grants: 8% - All other: 15% "Underwriting" includes sponsor spots. http://web.archive.org/web/20190914125855/https://ww2.kqed.org/about/who-funds-kqed/ http://web.archive.org/web/20190914125855/https://ww2.kqed.o... That breakdown is probably typical of larger stations. Many smaller stations operate through colleges, universities, or community resources, including federal funding for operating (but not programming) expenses. NPR also receives direct underwriting revenues, as do specific programmes (and their originating stations or organisations).
seem_2211 7y ago
Love to see software engineers who make $100k plus decide that other people should work for free.
- rpmisms 7y ago
  One of my favorite parts of HN is getting to laugh at folks in the Silicon Bubble. The real world is out here, and no, UBI is going to be spent on weed. All of it.
  - seem_2211 7y ago
    Or rent... (sadly)
- prepend 7y ago
  From each according to their ability my friend. Digital tech makes ability massive. As long as it’s volunteers it’s not work.
kerkeslager 7y ago
> Tech's position on the issue of how to fund journalism online is fundamentally incoherent. Who is "tech"? "Tech" has an incoherent position because "tech" is an incoherent entity you've invented so you can disagree with them. Here's my position--I think you'll find the position of a person who exists in reality to be a bit more coherent: Advertising is always bad. At the very best it's forcing biased views into our attention. At the worst, it's manipulative lies packaged with all manner of malware. Advertising breaks the fundamental ideal of capitalism that the best products and services for the best price win, because better-advertised products can win even if they're inferior. If one company advertises, all their competitors have to advertise, which takes money away from producing quality goods and services, and these costs are passed back to the consumer. And fundamentally, paying for content with advertising means that the content creator is serving the advertisers rather than the consumers of the content. I disagree with paywalls for academic publishing: these usually do nothing to support research financially, and hinder education and further research. Research is typically funded by institutions and governments anyway. For journalism, I prefer donation-based services, but I'm not opposed to paywalls, provided that they don't also include ads. For most other things, subscription or purchase models are perfectly acceptable. My personal preference is to have ownership of the content I have paid for (download an EPUB/MP3/MP4 or buy some physical media rather than stream it)--but this is a preference rather than an ethical position. > After 20 years of experiments, there are only two models that have been consistently proven to work: restricting access to paying customers only (a.k.a. paywalling), and open access combined with heavy, invasive advertising (both the traditional kind, and more insidious kinds like clickbait headlines and sponsored content). That's it. Those are the only models anyone's found that don't lead to bankruptcy. For journalism, none of Mother Jones[1], Pro Publica[2], or NPR follow either of the business models which you claim are the only ones that work. For academic publishing, there's a whole list of open access journals[3] which again have neither paywalls nor advertising. PBS has existed for a lot more than 20 years. At a more fundamental level, an entry-level Squarespace subscription costs $16 for the month, $12 if you pay annually[4]. There's lots of kinds of content that don't have to be for-profit at all, and the costs associated are well within the ability of most people to pay. > OK, fine. So what then does tech propose these publications do, exactly? Are they supposed to just lay down and die? In many cases, yes. Your argument seems to be, if these companies aren't evil they'll go bankrupt. I'm saying, if they are evil, then they should go bankrupt. Advertising models, in particular, support low-quality content, and even when they don't, the quality content is mixed in with low-quality content in a way where it's hard to distinguish the two (your Buzzfeed example is a good one for this). Isn't the fundamental principle of capitalism that the value of something is what people pay for it? So if nobody is willing to pay for, donate to, or devert institutional or government resources to something, it probably doesn't have much value, now does it? Why should we accept harmful business models just to prop up businesses that don't provide value? Obviously, content providers who make money off this will disagree. But I don't see why we as humans or as a society should be concerned if these people can't make money off their harmful business models. Good riddance. [1] https://www.motherjones.com/ https://www.motherjones.com/ [2] https://www.propublica.org/ https://www.propublica.org/ [3] https://doaj.org/ https://doaj.org/ [4] https://www.squarespace.com/pricing https://www.squarespace.com/pricing
nitwit005 7y ago
The views on ads are something of a self inflicted wound. The deeply negative feelings about online advertising are heavily due to the efforts of journalists. Look at all the stories about advertising privacy issues that pop up here.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago

It's important to also recognize that I often see sentiments on HN (not that this is a majority, but often enough that it isn't ultra-downvoted) that journalism as an industry is dying, as it should be because journalism is fundamentally flawed. That is to say, yes, people do believe journalism should die.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

PretzelFisch 7y ago

There is the NPR, PBS and wikipedia model. Not for profit companies that live off of the public's donations. Also the BBC model

macleginn 7y ago
It's hard to have more than one BBC in a given country.
cameronbrown 7y ago
The BBC model is awful. No matter how officially they say they're neutral, they're undeniably biased and it's not even their fault. It's quite obvious that it's impossible to criticise the government neutrally and fairly when you are effectively a branch of government.

Qwertystop 7y ago

A third route is to offer journalism or other content for free while soliciting donations. That works for Wikipedia, it works for NPR, and it works for a wide variety of smaller writers and artists through Patreon. There's also the advertising-only-if-you-don't-have-a-subscription model, as on Twitch (which may or may not have journalism, depending on what exists that I haven't seen and on whether you count talk shows on current-events).

Analemma_ 7y ago
> That works for Wikipedia Wikipedia doesn't do any original reporting, it (essentially) uses volunteer work to aggregate/summarize original research that other people have done. That original research has to get paid for. Or in other words, if all journalism ceases to exist, suddenly Wikipedia won't be able to function either. > it works for NPR NPR is also supported by advertising in a big way, we've all just sort of collectively agreed not to call it that. Technically NPR has "underwriters" and not "advertisers", and they run "underwriting segments" instead of "ads", but apart from a couple of FCC rules mandating stricter truth laws than normal ads, there's not really any difference. > as on Twitch The vast majority of Twitch broadcasters do not earn enough to make a living, and the ones who do generally get that way by being flashy, vapid and obnoxious enough to attract a cult following. I don't want this model to carry over to journalism. In conclusion, I don't think your comment offers any real evidence for a possible "third way" in journalism.
- magduf 7y ago
  >NPR is also supported by advertising in a big way, we've all just sort of collectively agreed not to call it that. This isn't completely true. NPR-associated stations regularly hold donation drives, and solicit donations from private individuals to help them meet their expenses. It's a significant part of their operating budget. Of course, they also have "messages from the sponsors" too, though not nearly as many as in commercial radio. Regular journalism could do the same thing if they wanted to.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Individual public radio stations, and NPR itelf, have different funding mechanisms. Much of NPR's revenue comes from member stations, with details at NPR. For individual stations, a mix of funding sources is generally represented. KQED, San Francisco's PBS/NPR affiliate, familiar to many HN readers, and the most-listened to radio station in the US, has a breakdown as follows: - Contributions & Membership Fees: 56% - Underwriting & General Grants: 21% - Community Service Grants: 8% - All other: 15% "Underwriting" includes sponsor spots. http://web.archive.org/web/20190914125855/https://ww2.kqed.org/about/who-funds-kqed/ http://web.archive.org/web/20190914125855/https://ww2.kqed.o... That breakdown is probably typical of larger stations. Many smaller stations operate through colleges, universities, or community resources, including federal funding for operating (but not programming) expenses. NPR also receives direct underwriting revenues, as do specific programmes (and their originating stations or organisations).

seem_2211 7y ago

Love to see software engineers who make $100k plus decide that other people should work for free.

rpmisms 7y ago
One of my favorite parts of HN is getting to laugh at folks in the Silicon Bubble. The real world is out here, and no, UBI is going to be spent on weed. All of it.
- seem_2211 7y ago
  Or rent... (sadly)
prepend 7y ago
From each according to their ability my friend. Digital tech makes ability massive. As long as it’s volunteers it’s not work.

kerkeslager 7y ago

> Tech's position on the issue of how to fund journalism online is fundamentally incoherent. Who is "tech"? "Tech" has an incoherent position because "tech" is an incoherent entity you've invented so you can disagree with them. Here's my position--I think you'll find the position of a person who exists in reality to be a bit more coherent: Advertising is always bad. At the very best it's forcing biased views into our attention. At the worst, it's manipulative lies packaged with all manner of malware. Advertising breaks the fundamental ideal of capitalism that the best products and services for the best price win, because better-advertised products can win even if they're inferior. If one company advertises, all their competitors have to advertise, which takes money away from producing quality goods and services, and these costs are passed back to the consumer. And fundamentally, paying for content with advertising means that the content creator is serving the advertisers rather than the consumers of the content. I disagree with paywalls for academic publishing: these usually do nothing to support research financially, and hinder education and further research. Research is typically funded by institutions and governments anyway. For journalism, I prefer donation-based services, but I'm not opposed to paywalls, provided that they don't also include ads. For most other things, subscription or purchase models are perfectly acceptable. My personal preference is to have ownership of the content I have paid for (download an EPUB/MP3/MP4 or buy some physical media rather than stream it)--but this is a preference rather than an ethical position. > After 20 years of experiments, there are only two models that have been consistently proven to work: restricting access to paying customers only (a.k.a. paywalling), and open access combined with heavy, invasive advertising (both the traditional kind, and more insidious kinds like clickbait headlines and sponsored content). That's it. Those are the only models anyone's found that don't lead to bankruptcy. For journalism, none of Mother Jones[1], Pro Publica[2], or NPR follow either of the business models which you claim are the only ones that work. For academic publishing, there's a whole list of open access journals[3] which again have neither paywalls nor advertising. PBS has existed for a lot more than 20 years. At a more fundamental level, an entry-level Squarespace subscription costs $16 for the month, $12 if you pay annually[4]. There's lots of kinds of content that don't have to be for-profit at all, and the costs associated are well within the ability of most people to pay. > OK, fine. So what then does tech propose these publications do, exactly? Are they supposed to just lay down and die? In many cases, yes. Your argument seems to be, if these companies aren't evil they'll go bankrupt. I'm saying, if they are evil, then they should go bankrupt. Advertising models, in particular, support low-quality content, and even when they don't, the quality content is mixed in with low-quality content in a way where it's hard to distinguish the two (your Buzzfeed example is a good one for this). Isn't the fundamental principle of capitalism that the value of something is what people pay for it? So if nobody is willing to pay for, donate to, or devert institutional or government resources to something, it probably doesn't have much value, now does it? Why should we accept harmful business models just to prop up businesses that don't provide value? Obviously, content providers who make money off this will disagree. But I don't see why we as humans or as a society should be concerned if these people can't make money off their harmful business models. Good riddance. [1] https://www.motherjones.com/ https://www.motherjones.com/ [2] https://www.propublica.org/ https://www.propublica.org/ [3] https://doaj.org/ https://doaj.org/ [4] https://www.squarespace.com/pricing https://www.squarespace.com/pricing

nitwit005 7y ago

The views on ads are something of a self inflicted wound. The deeply negative feelings about online advertising are heavily due to the efforts of journalists. Look at all the stories about advertising privacy issues that pop up here.