4 ms·

> Because of their mediocrity, media are dying. This is normal free market that is working well. The problem with this mindset is that there is a negative corr

> Because of their mediocrity, media are dying. This is normal free market that is working well. The problem with this mindset is that there is a negative correlation between investigative journalism and corruption. (e.g. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/08/25/when-the-local-newspaper-leaves-town-the-effects-of-local-newspaper-closures-on-corporate-misconduct/ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/08/25/when-the-local-ne... and https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/72689 https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/72689) When local newspapers close (or stop doing real investigative journalism) political and corporate corruption increases which causes a financial drag on the region. Given that we tend to bail out failing cities with state funds and failing states with federal funds the rest of us have a vested interest in ensuring that the other regions we're bound to maintain basic levels of functional governance. Setting aside the specifics of the strange law in the article, I would not be opposed in principle to spending $X a year propping up journalism to avoid spending $100X a year propping up corrupt cities and states.

mistrial9 3y ago
really eye-opening to see this downvoted here.. this is a fundamental principle of a functioning society, post-Enlightenment in the West
greatgib 3y ago
I don't think that it is true that the newspaper that are dying are the one that are doing the useful investigation s. Quite the opposite: the trend is to make easy money by cutting staff and just printing AP or Reuters click baity news. They are complaining that people just take the titles and don't pay for articles, but articles are empty block of rephrasing the content they got from AP. I think the trend is even having IA and co generating these contents, like for sport newspapers. And if you notice, also a big quantity of major newspaper ( like tv channels) are bought by moguls or the richest businessmen of most countries and then they clearly avoid doing dangerous investigation about the government and powerful persons because it is bad for business. But if you look carefully, the media that are still doing real investigative journalism and the one that are fighting corruption are not the one that are trying to racket Facebook. At the opposite most of them are independent, and they are proud to be funded by readers. And it works. People pay when they see that they get quality work. For example, in France, the is an online newspaper (Mediapart) that exposed most of the recent corruption cases and still they give the option for subscribers to share the articles that they want with friends for free. It works and I think that a lot of people like me are very happy to continue funding this media with our subscriptions.
- asoneth 3y ago
  > the trend is to make easy money by cutting staff and just printing AP or Reuters click baity news A "newspaper" that stops doing journalism and just reprints AP/Reuters articles and blog posts has already died. Whether they actually go out of business or continue on as a zombie is irrelevant since they have stopped producing journalism in either case. To reiterate my earlier comment, I am not arguing in favor of this strange California law. And I agree with you that reader-supported journalism (and other media) is the best approach, and I subscribe and donate to several organizations I feel do good work in this area. I'm solely responding to the earlier comment that the "media are dying. This is normal free market that is working well" to point out that we should not be so sanguine about the death of media like journalism. I am skeptical that democracy and free markets can survive without it.

mistrial9 3y ago

really eye-opening to see this downvoted here.. this is a fundamental principle of a functioning society, post-Enlightenment in the West

greatgib 3y ago

I don't think that it is true that the newspaper that are dying are the one that are doing the useful investigation s. Quite the opposite: the trend is to make easy money by cutting staff and just printing AP or Reuters click baity news. They are complaining that people just take the titles and don't pay for articles, but articles are empty block of rephrasing the content they got from AP. I think the trend is even having IA and co generating these contents, like for sport newspapers. And if you notice, also a big quantity of major newspaper ( like tv channels) are bought by moguls or the richest businessmen of most countries and then they clearly avoid doing dangerous investigation about the government and powerful persons because it is bad for business. But if you look carefully, the media that are still doing real investigative journalism and the one that are fighting corruption are not the one that are trying to racket Facebook. At the opposite most of them are independent, and they are proud to be funded by readers. And it works. People pay when they see that they get quality work. For example, in France, the is an online newspaper (Mediapart) that exposed most of the recent corruption cases and still they give the option for subscribers to share the articles that they want with friends for free. It works and I think that a lot of people like me are very happy to continue funding this media with our subscriptions.

asoneth 3y ago
> the trend is to make easy money by cutting staff and just printing AP or Reuters click baity news A "newspaper" that stops doing journalism and just reprints AP/Reuters articles and blog posts has already died. Whether they actually go out of business or continue on as a zombie is irrelevant since they have stopped producing journalism in either case. To reiterate my earlier comment, I am not arguing in favor of this strange California law. And I agree with you that reader-supported journalism (and other media) is the best approach, and I subscribe and donate to several organizations I feel do good work in this area. I'm solely responding to the earlier comment that the "media are dying. This is normal free market that is working well" to point out that we should not be so sanguine about the death of media like journalism. I am skeptical that democracy and free markets can survive without it.