4 ms·

I think there are three parts to your argument: 1) status quo is bad 2) you can design and centrally direct a better alternative and 3) it should be funded thro

I think there are three parts to your argument: 1) status quo is bad 2) you can design and centrally direct a better alternative and 3) it should be funded through taxation. Whether we need 3 depends on 1 and 2. Hell, if 1 is bad enough and 2 is good enough, it could justify anything, including conscription to a literal media war. But even assuming I grant you 1 is true, nothing in TFA or your comments convinces me that 2 is true. Most examples of state and media unification I can think of are not free, not useful except as explicit propaganda arms.

dredmorbius 2y ago
Several people have responded in ways that suggest I'm talking about publicly funding a single news source. That's not at all what I'm suggesting. Rather, it's creating a public fund for numerous news and informational sources. How many, what qualifications they should have, and how they are individually compensated is a further element of this discussion, but all of that's secondary to the point that what I'm calling for is not a single unitary Ministry of News, but for a many entities, preferably with multiple funding streams whether governmental (at local / regional / state / federal levels), ISP / connectivity provider fees, or other indirect funding sources (subscriptions, memberships, sponsorships, foundations, philanthropy, advertising, legal notices, distribution and/or production subsidies). So, 1: yes. 2: no. 3: in part.
- sooheon 2y ago
  > many entities, preferably with multiple funding streams whether governmental (at local / regional / state / federal levels), ISP / connectivity provider fees, or other indirect funding sources (subscriptions, memberships, sponsorships, foundations, philanthropy, advertising, legal notices, distribution and/or production subsidies). This is broad enough to include every funding source, and you're back to describing the status quo. All of these funding sources are available currently, and they're evidently not enough. The thesis just morphs from "why won't people pay for news?" to "why won't people politically organize to create quasi-public well funded media apparatuses?"
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    The difference is a funding floor in the form of a diversified, universally-applied funding basis, in the form of taxes (at multiple governmental levels) and/or an ISP-implemented media fee. Media and journalism generally presently lack this, and are suffering badly for it. The reframing question is fair, but asking why people won't pay directly for subscriptions under the present model remains a useful excercise, and is what I've attempted here.
    - sooheon 2y ago
      In TFA you say it should be funded "on a progressive basis", how do you suggest this be implemented? Most funding sources you suggest cannot discriminate based on user income; ISP fees, subscriptions, advertising... none of these can be applied progressively. You're really back down to more income taxation.
      - dredmorbius 2y ago
        Addressed here: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41270086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41270086> To a first approximation, varying fee by average neigbbourhood income might accomplish much of this. An assessment baked into income taxes (state or federal) could of course accomplish this directly. Offering different pricing tiers is another option, with a "basic" package that includes most sources, and one or more premium tiers which includes either greater availablity, or more immediate / current access to, entertainment and sport content, for example. Basic informational content, including news and cultural lore (classic books, movies, music, etc.) would be in the basic tier.
        sooheon 2y ago
        > entertainment and sport content > news and cultural lore (classic books, movies, music, etc.) Is the aim to recreate a state directed facsimile of the entire media ecosystem? All of this seems totally redundant to the market offerings, just now with bureaucratic overhead and the removal of personal choice, but it's tax funded so it's somehow better? It'd be simpler just to collect progressive taxes and give cash to the poor, who can pay for news and media (or food) according to their own preferences.

dredmorbius 2y ago

Several people have responded in ways that suggest I'm talking about publicly funding a single news source. That's not at all what I'm suggesting. Rather, it's creating a public fund for numerous news and informational sources. How many, what qualifications they should have, and how they are individually compensated is a further element of this discussion, but all of that's secondary to the point that what I'm calling for is not a single unitary Ministry of News, but for a many entities, preferably with multiple funding streams whether governmental (at local / regional / state / federal levels), ISP / connectivity provider fees, or other indirect funding sources (subscriptions, memberships, sponsorships, foundations, philanthropy, advertising, legal notices, distribution and/or production subsidies). So, 1: yes. 2: no. 3: in part.

sooheon 2y ago
> many entities, preferably with multiple funding streams whether governmental (at local / regional / state / federal levels), ISP / connectivity provider fees, or other indirect funding sources (subscriptions, memberships, sponsorships, foundations, philanthropy, advertising, legal notices, distribution and/or production subsidies). This is broad enough to include every funding source, and you're back to describing the status quo. All of these funding sources are available currently, and they're evidently not enough. The thesis just morphs from "why won't people pay for news?" to "why won't people politically organize to create quasi-public well funded media apparatuses?"
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  The difference is a funding floor in the form of a diversified, universally-applied funding basis, in the form of taxes (at multiple governmental levels) and/or an ISP-implemented media fee. Media and journalism generally presently lack this, and are suffering badly for it. The reframing question is fair, but asking why people won't pay directly for subscriptions under the present model remains a useful excercise, and is what I've attempted here.
  - sooheon 2y ago
    In TFA you say it should be funded "on a progressive basis", how do you suggest this be implemented? Most funding sources you suggest cannot discriminate based on user income; ISP fees, subscriptions, advertising... none of these can be applied progressively. You're really back down to more income taxation.
    - dredmorbius 2y ago
      Addressed here: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41270086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41270086> To a first approximation, varying fee by average neigbbourhood income might accomplish much of this. An assessment baked into income taxes (state or federal) could of course accomplish this directly. Offering different pricing tiers is another option, with a "basic" package that includes most sources, and one or more premium tiers which includes either greater availablity, or more immediate / current access to, entertainment and sport content, for example. Basic informational content, including news and cultural lore (classic books, movies, music, etc.) would be in the basic tier.
      - sooheon 2y ago
        > entertainment and sport content > news and cultural lore (classic books, movies, music, etc.) Is the aim to recreate a state directed facsimile of the entire media ecosystem? All of this seems totally redundant to the market offerings, just now with bureaucratic overhead and the removal of personal choice, but it's tax funded so it's somehow better? It'd be simpler just to collect progressive taxes and give cash to the poor, who can pay for news and media (or food) according to their own preferences.