4 ms·

Open source is the absolute worst business model you could've suggested. Any business that benefits from journalism would keep it as secret as possible so only

Open source is the absolute worst business model you could've suggested. Any business that benefits from journalism would keep it as secret as possible so only they can reap the rewards.

prepend 7y ago
I don’t think business model is the right term. But open source consistently produces excellent software. I think better than any commercial software. I don’t think the solution is all software being open, but if by business model we mean a way to consistently produce good stuff then it would be a great option for news. I think the ultimate solution is to figure out a model for news that doesn’t rely on echo chamber subscriptions, privacy eating ads, or govt sponsored bias. It’s a tough nut to crack, but I think an OSS-like volunteer with reputation model is the most likely. I’m way more likely to donate to a Linux Foundation/FSF/Apache Foundation style org that figures out how to get good truth and relevancy than NYT.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  You're right that open source in itself is not a business model, but as a community it tends to have a similar set of ways of monetising. But I disagree OSS produces better quality than commercial, because the two don't always equate. What you're likely referring to as high quality (Firefox, Android, Chromium, Linux, Gnome, etc..) all have massive commercial backing. They are commercial products without a doubt. There's a ton of stuff that isn't commercial software like GCC or GNU tools but these aren't necessarily high quality unless you're capable of using them. That is, OSS is good quality for those who are likely developers or otherwise technically inclined. If we take it back to the context of open publishing models, we have to make sure we can build a business model that works for everyone, and not a subset niche of readers. I really don't believe there's a solution. As much as it pains me to say, I think diversity of revenue sources across the industry make for the best option - being ads, subscriptions and government entities all in the same market, which is basically what we have now. Much of the minute details of the status quo need to change, but I believe this is it for traditional* news publishing. *I think independent influencers and creators who are funded directly by fans are likely the biggest shake up, but that's still just a subscription and at much smaller scale.
kiliantics 7y ago
My understanding of what "open source journalism" might mean is something like Wikipedia, which provides pretty reliable information.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  The incentive structures are very different and this is the root of the problem. Being successful in 'journalism' is sadly more about connections and being middle class (not saying there isn't exceptions) than anything else which is the very antithesis of Wikipedia contributors. If we're going to discuss real journalists (not this pseudo-activism we've got today) who travel out into the public or dangerous places to find out the facts, then yeah, I think that's something we need, but the simple fact is you can't make money doing this with a Wiki style model. In my opinion this means the future is independent creators who are funded directly and traditional media completely burning up.
  - kiliantics 7y ago
    It's not clear to me that it's necessary to make money from publishing news. Many people contribute to Wikipedia without being paid.

Open source is the absolute worst business model you could've suggested. Any business that benefits from journalism would keep it as secret as possible so only they can reap the rewards.

prepend 7y ago

I don’t think business model is the right term. But open source consistently produces excellent software. I think better than any commercial software. I don’t think the solution is all software being open, but if by business model we mean a way to consistently produce good stuff then it would be a great option for news. I think the ultimate solution is to figure out a model for news that doesn’t rely on echo chamber subscriptions, privacy eating ads, or govt sponsored bias. It’s a tough nut to crack, but I think an OSS-like volunteer with reputation model is the most likely. I’m way more likely to donate to a Linux Foundation/FSF/Apache Foundation style org that figures out how to get good truth and relevancy than NYT.

cameronbrown 7y ago
You're right that open source in itself is not a business model, but as a community it tends to have a similar set of ways of monetising. But I disagree OSS produces better quality than commercial, because the two don't always equate. What you're likely referring to as high quality (Firefox, Android, Chromium, Linux, Gnome, etc..) all have massive commercial backing. They are commercial products without a doubt. There's a ton of stuff that isn't commercial software like GCC or GNU tools but these aren't necessarily high quality unless you're capable of using them. That is, OSS is good quality for those who are likely developers or otherwise technically inclined. If we take it back to the context of open publishing models, we have to make sure we can build a business model that works for everyone, and not a subset niche of readers. I really don't believe there's a solution. As much as it pains me to say, I think diversity of revenue sources across the industry make for the best option - being ads, subscriptions and government entities all in the same market, which is basically what we have now. Much of the minute details of the status quo need to change, but I believe this is it for traditional* news publishing. *I think independent influencers and creators who are funded directly by fans are likely the biggest shake up, but that's still just a subscription and at much smaller scale.

kiliantics 7y ago

My understanding of what "open source journalism" might mean is something like Wikipedia, which provides pretty reliable information.

cameronbrown 7y ago
The incentive structures are very different and this is the root of the problem. Being successful in 'journalism' is sadly more about connections and being middle class (not saying there isn't exceptions) than anything else which is the very antithesis of Wikipedia contributors. If we're going to discuss real journalists (not this pseudo-activism we've got today) who travel out into the public or dangerous places to find out the facts, then yeah, I think that's something we need, but the simple fact is you can't make money doing this with a Wiki style model. In my opinion this means the future is independent creators who are funded directly and traditional media completely burning up.
- kiliantics 7y ago
  It's not clear to me that it's necessary to make money from publishing news. Many people contribute to Wikipedia without being paid.