3 ms·
> I see it as a net positive, you have a decentralized distributed group of investitive journalists who are directly reliant on their subscriber base rather tha
by mschuster91 3y ago
> I see it as a net positive, you have a decentralized distributed group of investitive journalists who are directly reliant on their subscriber base rather than the political whims of the institution. So they are more incentivized to do good work and are harder to silence when the go against the powers-that-be.
The problem: with a massive media powerhouse such as the NYT backing you, you can go against large international conglomerates - their lawyers will have your back, and you won't have to pay out of your personal pocket in case of the other side winning in court.
Once you go freelance, that protection vanishes.
- michaelrpeskin 3y agoGood point. However, the conglomerates just buy ad space on the the powerhouses such as the NYT and they're not as firewalled as you'd hope. The NYT will never allow a negative article go out against someone who has major ad buys.