3 ms·

We don't need a new journalism, we need a new economic model to support the old old journalism (pre-1990s). The three foundational planks that we've since lost

by ethbr0 6y ago

We don't need a new journalism, we need a new economic model to support the old old journalism (pre-1990s). The three foundational planks that we've since lost are (1) strong newsroom editorial control of content, independent of revenue, (2) long form & investigative journalism as a stable, viable profession, & (3) journalists and journalism outlets with reputation (able to counter-balance the weight of those they report on). The greatest tragedy of Google and Facebook has been that they appropriated advertising money that used to support actual journalism, and in return offered us free social and utility apps, but definitely not journalism. IMHO, we should just say the hell with it, tax advertising revenue, and fund journalism as a public good.

BrianOnHN 6y ago
While I agree, this reads as "faster horses." Though I would be for it, half of the US will vehemently oppose funding "fake news" with tax dollars. That leaves "ditching the horse altogether" as the only option. What does that look like?
Kalium 6y ago
It's easy for people to look at the highlights of journalism and think we must go back. It's more challenging to remember that yellow journalism and worse came from that old old journalism. Perhaps it's only the best results of the old way we want, rather than all of them? The greatest tragedy of modern journalism has been its inability to adapt business models to a changing world. The old old assumption was that newspapers and TV had a near monopoly on user attention, with a tragic unwillingness to consider that maybe this wouldn't always be the case. Outlets more focused on subscriptions and less on advertising seem to have come through better. Perhaps the alignment between advertising and journalism was coincidental, rather than some iron law? > IMHO, we should just say the hell with it, tax advertising revenue, and fund journalism as a public good. Don't we already have outlets like that? How do you feel about Voice of America or People's Daily? IMHO, a lot of people distrust them as rather less than independent.
nradov 6y ago
Substack is that new economic model for a limited number of investigative journalists who have strong name recognition like Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi. But it probably won't scale to the levels were need.
- datavirtue 6y ago
  Substack is currently awesome but it isn't going to be able to pay for journalism on any significant scale, as you mentioned. Journalism needs to be paid for by philanthropy. Absolute independence from market forces and political pressures. There are enough billionaires that could fund endless journalism off a fraction of their interest earnings.
  - Kalium 6y ago
    How much do you trust the independence of the Washington Post, now that it's owned and backed by Jeff Bezos? They clearly have freedom from market forces and political pressures now.
    - datavirtue 6y ago
      It is traditional for-profit journalism.
CM30 6y ago
> IMHO, we should just say the hell with it, tax advertising revenue, and fund journalism as a public good. What about the independent journalists and outlets that rely on said advertising revenue? Or the more mainstream ones that do likewise? Seems like this may make it worse for those, unless you've got a way this can only affect ad network providers rather than those utilising their services.

by ethbr0 6y ago

BrianOnHN 6y ago

While I agree, this reads as "faster horses." Though I would be for it, half of the US will vehemently oppose funding "fake news" with tax dollars. That leaves "ditching the horse altogether" as the only option. What does that look like?

Kalium 6y ago

It's easy for people to look at the highlights of journalism and think we must go back. It's more challenging to remember that yellow journalism and worse came from that old old journalism. Perhaps it's only the best results of the old way we want, rather than all of them? The greatest tragedy of modern journalism has been its inability to adapt business models to a changing world. The old old assumption was that newspapers and TV had a near monopoly on user attention, with a tragic unwillingness to consider that maybe this wouldn't always be the case. Outlets more focused on subscriptions and less on advertising seem to have come through better. Perhaps the alignment between advertising and journalism was coincidental, rather than some iron law? > IMHO, we should just say the hell with it, tax advertising revenue, and fund journalism as a public good. Don't we already have outlets like that? How do you feel about Voice of America or People's Daily? IMHO, a lot of people distrust them as rather less than independent.

nradov 6y ago

Substack is that new economic model for a limited number of investigative journalists who have strong name recognition like Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi. But it probably won't scale to the levels were need.

datavirtue 6y ago
Substack is currently awesome but it isn't going to be able to pay for journalism on any significant scale, as you mentioned. Journalism needs to be paid for by philanthropy. Absolute independence from market forces and political pressures. There are enough billionaires that could fund endless journalism off a fraction of their interest earnings.
- Kalium 6y ago
  How much do you trust the independence of the Washington Post, now that it's owned and backed by Jeff Bezos? They clearly have freedom from market forces and political pressures now.
  - datavirtue 6y ago
    It is traditional for-profit journalism.

CM30 6y ago

> IMHO, we should just say the hell with it, tax advertising revenue, and fund journalism as a public good. What about the independent journalists and outlets that rely on said advertising revenue? Or the more mainstream ones that do likewise? Seems like this may make it worse for those, unless you've got a way this can only affect ad network providers rather than those utilising their services.