Iirc, Matt Taibbi said that newspapers are dying because the news never made money. Some of it was subscriptions, but most of it was the classifieds, ads, and o

Iirc, Matt Taibbi said that newspapers are dying because the news never made money. Some of it was subscriptions, but most of it was the classifieds, ads, and other non-news items that were obliterated by the internet. This means that subscription models (like NYT) and media consolidation are the only viable path forward. Subscriptions mean that papers will cater to a wealthy audiance and lock out the poors. Advertising makes news available to the poor, but makes their opinions unrepresented because newspapers can't say anything that would upset their advertisers. Given the news doesn't really make money and is necessary for a functioning society, we might need to look towards public funding and ways to include the public. EDIT: As a side benefit, a publicly funded news agency doesn't need to maximize eyeballs on it and so can afford to be less sensationalist. That is, it can be, but it has no life-or-death obligation to do it.