4 ms·

The for profit model of journalism has been the dominant form for over 100 years. During the majority of that time it flourished. Only in the last 25 years has

The for profit model of journalism has been the dominant form for over 100 years. During the majority of that time it flourished. Only in the last 25 years has it collapsed. I’d say your view probably needs some updating.

eli 3y ago
It was a fluke that it worked so well for so long.
- next_xibalba 3y ago
  Over 100 years is a fluke? Nothing about it feels unlikely, lucky, or by chance. fluke - noun - an unlikely chance occurrence, especially a surprising piece of luck. Ex: "their triumph was no fluke"
  - eli 3y ago
    The etymology of that sense of "fluke" is from the game of billiards. It's when you make a successful stroke by accident. And yes it was a lucky stroke for journalism that the same newspapers that carried their words happened to carry lucrative ad space and sports box scores that were hard to get elsewhere. Classified ad revenue carried a lot of newspapers because for a long time there was really nothing else like it. That was lucky. It wasn't anything particular to the news; but a lack of other options. Now there are other options.
Analemma_ 3y ago
But it collapsed for reasons that can't be reversed or maneuvered around. For all the talk about the more esoteric reasons for journalism's problems like partisan polarization or Big Tech— which aren't wrong but are mostly higher-order correction terms— the fundamental problem is much more simple: most journalism was paid for by things other than reader revenue. Classified ads, movie showtimes, and a whole bunch of other revenue streams were actually what propped up newspapers; these were all obliterated by the Internet and they won't ever return. At no point in history has journalism ever survived on subscription revenue alone, there was merely an anomalous period where it didn't need to because there were enough sources of supplemental revenue. But now that period is over, and so we have to think about a business model that can survive given the reality of "subscription revenue is not enough and can never be enough".
- next_xibalba 3y ago
  > At no point in history has journalism ever survived on subscription revenue alone Aren't there quite a few journos that are thriving via substack, which is, to my knowledge, purely subscription based?
  - Analemma_ 3y ago
    There are quite a few opinion columnists thriving on Substack. I think there are few, if any, journalists doing boots-on-the-ground reporting thriving there.

eli 3y ago

It was a fluke that it worked so well for so long.

next_xibalba 3y ago
Over 100 years is a fluke? Nothing about it feels unlikely, lucky, or by chance. fluke - noun - an unlikely chance occurrence, especially a surprising piece of luck. Ex: "their triumph was no fluke"
- eli 3y ago
  The etymology of that sense of "fluke" is from the game of billiards. It's when you make a successful stroke by accident. And yes it was a lucky stroke for journalism that the same newspapers that carried their words happened to carry lucrative ad space and sports box scores that were hard to get elsewhere. Classified ad revenue carried a lot of newspapers because for a long time there was really nothing else like it. That was lucky. It wasn't anything particular to the news; but a lack of other options. Now there are other options.

Analemma_ 3y ago

But it collapsed for reasons that can't be reversed or maneuvered around. For all the talk about the more esoteric reasons for journalism's problems like partisan polarization or Big Tech— which aren't wrong but are mostly higher-order correction terms— the fundamental problem is much more simple: most journalism was paid for by things other than reader revenue. Classified ads, movie showtimes, and a whole bunch of other revenue streams were actually what propped up newspapers; these were all obliterated by the Internet and they won't ever return. At no point in history has journalism ever survived on subscription revenue alone, there was merely an anomalous period where it didn't need to because there were enough sources of supplemental revenue. But now that period is over, and so we have to think about a business model that can survive given the reality of "subscription revenue is not enough and can never be enough".

next_xibalba 3y ago
> At no point in history has journalism ever survived on subscription revenue alone Aren't there quite a few journos that are thriving via substack, which is, to my knowledge, purely subscription based?
- Analemma_ 3y ago
  There are quite a few opinion columnists thriving on Substack. I think there are few, if any, journalists doing boots-on-the-ground reporting thriving there.