3 ms·
>Bland, boring copy I don't disagree, but you should consider the fact that journalists are asked to convey complex information in as few words as possible and
by sosborn 13y ago
>Bland, boring copy
I don't disagree, but you should consider the fact that journalists are asked to convey complex information in as few words as possible and in a way that appeals to as wide an audience as possible.
Things are generally better in publications that still have healthy revenue, but those are becoming few and far between. At the end of the day, we (the general public) get what we pay for.
- InclinedPlane 13y agoBut why would people pay good money for the average example of journalism today? More often than not it's just a regurgitation of wire copy or something equally as valueless. It's no surprise that traditional journalistic forms are struggling. The ad revenue is going away because newspapers no longer have a stranglehold on local dissimination of information, and few people want to pay for journalism because, frankly, most of it just isn't very good. But people are still willing to pay good money for good journalism, it's just that it's rare to find such examples today. Nevertheless, there is an entire category for journalism on kickstarter (https://www.kickstarter.com/discover/advanced?category_id=13&sort=most_funded https://www.kickstarter.com/discover/advanced?category_id=13...) which has nearly a thousand projects. There's nearly a million dollars in funding just in the top 20 projects alone, just on kickstarter. And a lot of these new journalists are still struggling to find popularity since most people are still unaware of alternatives to the mainstream media. I believe that there is a huge market opportunity in media in the 21st century, but traditional journalists aren't going to find it because they are still locked in a model of journalism that is increasingly outmoded at a fundamental level.