9 ms·
>Newspapers would need to be subscription-only or patronage-based. In my eyes, this would be a win. Journalism ideally should serve the readers. Aligning the b
by indigochill 7y ago
>Newspapers would need to be subscription-only or patronage-based.
In my eyes, this would be a win. Journalism ideally should serve the readers. Aligning the business model (patronage/subscription-only) with the ideal seems like a good thing in the long run.
Journalism (including but not limited to print) is filled with essentially noise that wouldn't be economically viable if the publishers had to justify the value of their content to their audience.
- Mountain_Skies 7y agoIt would be interesting to study the content creators with the highest patreon revenue and see what kind of content they're creating. Is it Outrage of the Day echo chamber content, how to DIY, storytelling, or something else. That might give us some insight into what a advertising free content creation world would look like.
- Mirioron 7y agoIt also means that people would have a lot less access to information about what's going on. I wouldn't subscribe to a single newspaper or magazine if it cost me money. I would guess that a lot of the people I know would do the same. Knowing more about the world has been interesting and it probably has benefited my view of the world, but it hasn't given me anything tangible or anything I could point to. If anything it has occupied a lot of my time instead.
- throwaway5466 7y agoWe're already saturated with information. Even if 99% less filtered through paywalls that'd be more than enough to satiate anyone's needs.
- michaelt 7y agoSeems to me just as likely we'd get a third option: Free journalism paid for by the super-rich and large corporations. If there was no other free news, the costs to ExxonMobil or Boeing or Comcast to run a 100-person newsroom would pay for itself in favourable treatment from legislators.