4 ms·

I would think that scale would actually greatly benefit journalism. Why is there no Netflix or Spotify for journalism? I'm thinking of something that provides a

I would think that scale would actually greatly benefit journalism. Why is there no Netflix or Spotify for journalism? I'm thinking of something that provides affordable, comprehensive, high quality and individually recommended articles, at a scale that provides large sums of money for journalism. A single newspaper subscription is often more expensive than Netflix, offering far less production value. No wonder classical journalism is losing market share among young people to more affordable and relatable formats.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Apple has a News subscription that is sort of what you’re imagining. But I think the race to bottom on journalism will lead to worse quality news. Will it be worth paying for at that point?
- raincole 2y ago
  The biggest competitors to the news are random people (by "random" I mean they don't care about journalism at all, not they are not famous) on TikTok and doing Podcast. The quality has been abysmal already.
jaredwiener 2y ago
That's what we've been working on at www.forth.news Some explanation: https://blog.forth.news/a-business-model-for-21st-century-news/ https://blog.forth.news/a-business-model-for-21st-century-ne...
benreesman 2y ago
Big Tech / AI Bloc absolutely has an aggregated journalism portfolio: it’s a huge, debatably dominant part of the advertising duopoly’s suite of offerings. Some of the “content” they pay directly for via creator subsidy, some of it they crowdsource, for some of it they control the views of on what is left of legacy media, but almost all of it runs through them one way or another. It’s a matter of opinion how that’s going I suppose.
afavour 2y ago
I think one of the big reasons is cost. Spotify and Netflix are able to trade off their vast libraries of back content (some of the most popular streaming shows are still The Office and Friends). The production cost on those is long since paid and they can just rake in money from it. Not so for journalism. There are very few pieces people will return to years after they’re written. It requires constant publishing of new content and to make good content costs money.
jahewson 2y ago
There’s just better things to do nowadays. A YouTube video from my favorite expert on a topic is so much more engaging and enjoyable than reading a long article from some staff writer.
j45 2y ago
Lots of things and voices don't get covered in the media even with the best intentioned people. Simple resources and headcount. Maybe tools like AI can help more information get out there, maybe faster than mis-information.
nunez 2y ago
I believe Apple News is basically this.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

Apple has a News subscription that is sort of what you’re imagining. But I think the race to bottom on journalism will lead to worse quality news. Will it be worth paying for at that point?

raincole 2y ago
The biggest competitors to the news are random people (by "random" I mean they don't care about journalism at all, not they are not famous) on TikTok and doing Podcast. The quality has been abysmal already.

jaredwiener 2y ago

That's what we've been working on at www.forth.news Some explanation: https://blog.forth.news/a-business-model-for-21st-century-news/ https://blog.forth.news/a-business-model-for-21st-century-ne...

benreesman 2y ago

Big Tech / AI Bloc absolutely has an aggregated journalism portfolio: it’s a huge, debatably dominant part of the advertising duopoly’s suite of offerings. Some of the “content” they pay directly for via creator subsidy, some of it they crowdsource, for some of it they control the views of on what is left of legacy media, but almost all of it runs through them one way or another. It’s a matter of opinion how that’s going I suppose.

afavour 2y ago

I think one of the big reasons is cost. Spotify and Netflix are able to trade off their vast libraries of back content (some of the most popular streaming shows are still The Office and Friends). The production cost on those is long since paid and they can just rake in money from it. Not so for journalism. There are very few pieces people will return to years after they’re written. It requires constant publishing of new content and to make good content costs money.

jahewson 2y ago

There’s just better things to do nowadays. A YouTube video from my favorite expert on a topic is so much more engaging and enjoyable than reading a long article from some staff writer.

j45 2y ago

Lots of things and voices don't get covered in the media even with the best intentioned people. Simple resources and headcount. Maybe tools like AI can help more information get out there, maybe faster than mis-information.

nunez 2y ago

I believe Apple News is basically this.