3 ms·
This is also true. Except that "figuring out the story for themselves" from primary sources is more challenging than the average reader is capable of ;) And ye
by marcus_holmes 3y ago
This is also true. Except that "figuring out the story for themselves" from primary sources is more challenging than the average reader is capable of ;)
And yes, I believe the future will be self-publishing, but it's a hard road for journos compared to being paid to be in a newsroom. And yes, ultimately it's up to us as readers to resolve this, probably by paying for our news.
The only problem with this solution is that people tend to pay for "news" that agrees with their opinions. There's an obvious financial incentive to pander to people's prejudices here.
- brutusborn 3y agoI think that problem exists for any solution. Whoever funds the media is going to prefer information that supports their beliefs, whether that is governments or citizens or advertisers. Citizen funded media results in the least centralization of power, so is better imo.
- marcus_holmes 3y agoTrue, much better than relying on billionaires to fund the news as a charity, as we do now :eyeroll:
- brutusborn 3y agoI wasn’t aware of this, I thought most of the funding was from government/corporations and ads? Which news orgs are charities?
- marcus_holmes 3y agoWashington Post is the obvious one - owned by Jeff Bezos and there are indications it changed its editorial stance to be more pro-billionaire since he took it over. It's not exactly charity if the owner uses it to influence government tax policy to your benefit ;)