3 ms·

Quality journalism just doesn't make any money because everyone expects such content for free by now. Also outrage sells more and bad journalists outclass good

Quality journalism just doesn't make any money because everyone expects such content for free by now. Also outrage sells more and bad journalists outclass good ones by clicks. The "modern activist type" of journalist rarely writes anything substantial or interesting, only very few master the balancing act between helpful news and entertainment. I remember articles that more often than not could really broaden your understanding on a topic. Sometimes research for a short text took months. I have no idea how you could finance such endeavors anymore.

Tarsul 2y ago
wrt money: It appears facebook and google profited, like, imeasurably through serving or linking to news. How come news media itself gets so little of those monetary benefits? That's a huge problem that hasn't been adressed since governments have been asleep at the wheel for 20 years.
- Arnt 2y ago
  I've heard that too. But I've also heard that it wasn't immeasurable and wasn't a large share of their income.
- galkk 2y ago
  Facebook and google profited though serving links. Not only to the news.
forgetfreeman 2y ago
Ignoring issues of funding there are serious questions about audience reach to consider. There appears to be little market for thoughtful, well-researched, long-form journalistic content. This feels similar to how folks raised seven shades of hell about fast food chains not having healthy food options on the menu until McDonalds added a salad option. Predictably nobody bought the salad so they got rid of it.
- cloudsec9 2y ago
  I think this isn't true; it might be that people might not read an eight-part expose on a topic, but they do resonate with many people, some of whom may even pay or choose to subscribe based on it. To pick up your McD's analogy, I'm sure they did focus groups and test runs to gauge interest and build the product up. If memory serves, they did this in the context of many low-end buffets adding a salad bar and "healthier" alternatives becoming available. I think they added this option as popularity of salads started to decline. I'm sure many people bought them, but it wasn't profitable enough so they discontinued it, in favor of other healthy options. Now, to pivot back to news, they used to be awash in print ads, both classified and throughout the copy pages, which subsidized their operations a great deal. There are lots of demand for news, but the challenge is how you pay for it. I think it would have been great if the big players (FB, Google) had set up revenue shares with legit outlets; but they don't want to share their $$ pie so we are all worse off.
  - forgetfreeman 2y ago
    The phrase "if it bleeds it ledes" hasn't been an industry cliche for 50+ years for no reason. Engagement numbers don't lie. Hyperbolic opinion pieces attract as many or more views as painstakingly researched journalism at a fraction of the price.
criddell 2y ago
> Quality journalism just doesn't make any money because everyone expects such content for free by now. I don't see the connection. My parents and grandparents watched news everyday on television and it was all free. > Also outrage sells more This is may or may not be true, but I think you are hinting at the actual underlying reason - news often isn't compelling. My parents and grandparents didn't have the near infinite number of choices for how to spend their time at 6pm. They were probably going to watch tv, or at least have it on, and the three available channels were all playing a newscast, so that's what they watched. Keeping up with local and world events might be important, but it also has a real eat-your-vegetables vibe to it. There are so many other things I'd rather do than read or watch reporting on what happened today. There are some segments of journalism that I think are doing quite well. For example, sports writing is still turning out great stuff and attracting an audience.
philipkglass 2y ago
The news stand price or subscription price for a newspaper wasn't a big chunk of the publisher's revenue even back in the 20th century. The big money maker was ads. Papers had a regional monopoly or oligopoly over a certain advertising channel. They could make excellent margins on classified ads when they charged people to list a used truck for sale, a duplex for rent, or an open job position that needed an employee. They also made good (if not quite so excellent) margins on ads interspersed in the main body of the paper for department stores, auto dealerships, restaurants, and most other kinds of local/regional businesses. On top of that, people didn't just buy the paper to get investigative journalism. They were also buying low cost content like the funny pages, movie reviews, weather forecasts, and sports scores. Even with limited competition for advertising, few newspapers in the 20th century could have turned a profit while filling their pages with nothing but investigative journalism. In-depth reporting is too expensive to make up the bulk of a paper. Investigative journalism was a kind of expensive spice that gave zest to the rest of the lower-cost content. Newspaper owners took pride in it and tried to steadily produce it but there was no way to fill daily issues with nothing but investigation. Craigslist killed the margins for classified ads. A million sources killed the newspaper's allure for delivering weather forecasts, sports scores, and other low cost information. Keyword and geo-targeted advertising on major digital platforms added fierce competition for print display ads. The main thing people miss from the newspaper is investigative journalism. But investigative journalism, unbundled from cheap filler and high margin advertising, can't be delivered at prices most people are willing to pay. There are a few maybe-outliers like the New York Times and Los Angeles times that survive on a reputation for depth and a national audience. But the days of every mid-sized American city having a local newspaper or two with investigative reporters on staff has passed, unless someone can come up with a new business model.

Tarsul 2y ago

wrt money: It appears facebook and google profited, like, imeasurably through serving or linking to news. How come news media itself gets so little of those monetary benefits? That's a huge problem that hasn't been adressed since governments have been asleep at the wheel for 20 years.

Arnt 2y ago
I've heard that too. But I've also heard that it wasn't immeasurable and wasn't a large share of their income.
galkk 2y ago
Facebook and google profited though serving links. Not only to the news.

forgetfreeman 2y ago

Ignoring issues of funding there are serious questions about audience reach to consider. There appears to be little market for thoughtful, well-researched, long-form journalistic content. This feels similar to how folks raised seven shades of hell about fast food chains not having healthy food options on the menu until McDonalds added a salad option. Predictably nobody bought the salad so they got rid of it.

cloudsec9 2y ago
I think this isn't true; it might be that people might not read an eight-part expose on a topic, but they do resonate with many people, some of whom may even pay or choose to subscribe based on it. To pick up your McD's analogy, I'm sure they did focus groups and test runs to gauge interest and build the product up. If memory serves, they did this in the context of many low-end buffets adding a salad bar and "healthier" alternatives becoming available. I think they added this option as popularity of salads started to decline. I'm sure many people bought them, but it wasn't profitable enough so they discontinued it, in favor of other healthy options. Now, to pivot back to news, they used to be awash in print ads, both classified and throughout the copy pages, which subsidized their operations a great deal. There are lots of demand for news, but the challenge is how you pay for it. I think it would have been great if the big players (FB, Google) had set up revenue shares with legit outlets; but they don't want to share their $$ pie so we are all worse off.
- forgetfreeman 2y ago
  The phrase "if it bleeds it ledes" hasn't been an industry cliche for 50+ years for no reason. Engagement numbers don't lie. Hyperbolic opinion pieces attract as many or more views as painstakingly researched journalism at a fraction of the price.

criddell 2y ago

> Quality journalism just doesn't make any money because everyone expects such content for free by now. I don't see the connection. My parents and grandparents watched news everyday on television and it was all free. > Also outrage sells more This is may or may not be true, but I think you are hinting at the actual underlying reason - news often isn't compelling. My parents and grandparents didn't have the near infinite number of choices for how to spend their time at 6pm. They were probably going to watch tv, or at least have it on, and the three available channels were all playing a newscast, so that's what they watched. Keeping up with local and world events might be important, but it also has a real eat-your-vegetables vibe to it. There are so many other things I'd rather do than read or watch reporting on what happened today. There are some segments of journalism that I think are doing quite well. For example, sports writing is still turning out great stuff and attracting an audience.

philipkglass 2y ago

The news stand price or subscription price for a newspaper wasn't a big chunk of the publisher's revenue even back in the 20th century. The big money maker was ads. Papers had a regional monopoly or oligopoly over a certain advertising channel. They could make excellent margins on classified ads when they charged people to list a used truck for sale, a duplex for rent, or an open job position that needed an employee. They also made good (if not quite so excellent) margins on ads interspersed in the main body of the paper for department stores, auto dealerships, restaurants, and most other kinds of local/regional businesses. On top of that, people didn't just buy the paper to get investigative journalism. They were also buying low cost content like the funny pages, movie reviews, weather forecasts, and sports scores. Even with limited competition for advertising, few newspapers in the 20th century could have turned a profit while filling their pages with nothing but investigative journalism. In-depth reporting is too expensive to make up the bulk of a paper. Investigative journalism was a kind of expensive spice that gave zest to the rest of the lower-cost content. Newspaper owners took pride in it and tried to steadily produce it but there was no way to fill daily issues with nothing but investigation. Craigslist killed the margins for classified ads. A million sources killed the newspaper's allure for delivering weather forecasts, sports scores, and other low cost information. Keyword and geo-targeted advertising on major digital platforms added fierce competition for print display ads. The main thing people miss from the newspaper is investigative journalism. But investigative journalism, unbundled from cheap filler and high margin advertising, can't be delivered at prices most people are willing to pay. There are a few maybe-outliers like the New York Times and Los Angeles times that survive on a reputation for depth and a national audience. But the days of every mid-sized American city having a local newspaper or two with investigative reporters on staff has passed, unless someone can come up with a new business model.