Making the news available at no cost is a victory
1–10 of 141 posts
Re: Making the news available at no cost is a victory
#2The "Free News" model is certainly something I've struggled to solve. How exactly can you provide impartial, objective reporting when you cant afford the salaries?
If the people arent interested in paying... what else can you do?
Re: Making the news available at no cost is a victory
#3Making newsrooms beholden to donors is not ideal, but it's better than being beholden to advertisers.
Re: Making the news available at no cost is a victory
#4The "Free News" model is certainly something I've struggled to solve. How exactly can you provide impartial, objective reporting when you cant afford the salaries? If the people arent interested in paying... what else can you do?
If people don’t want to pay, then they don’t actually value the news. I pay for publications that I trust and want to continue reading.
The key is finding a niche where the news organization can produce quality reporting that people actually value. “Free News” is just another ad business.
Re: Making the news available at no cost is a victory
#5Making newsrooms beholden to donors is not ideal, but it's better than being beholden to advertisers.
...is there a difference? The donors tend to have just as much of an agenda to push
Re: Making the news available at no cost is a victory
#6The "Free News" model is certainly something I've struggled to solve. How exactly can you provide impartial, objective reporting when you cant afford the salaries? If the people arent interested in paying... what else can you do?
There's an even more fundamental problem: even if you can pay the salaries, how do you ensure that your organization remains aligned with the original goal? How do you prevent it from being subtly influenced by the confluence of interests it will be exposed to by virtue of wielding influence? How do you defend against less than subtle interests?
Note that charging for the news does not defend you against this.
Re: Making the news available at no cost is a victory
#7Making newsrooms beholden to donors is not ideal, but it's better than being beholden to advertisers.
"beholden to donors" is a nonsensical phrase, unless "donors" is defined with a wink, a nod, and air-quotes.
Re: Making the news available at no cost is a victory
#8The "Free News" model is certainly something I've struggled to solve. How exactly can you provide impartial, objective reporting when you cant afford the salaries? If the people arent interested in paying... what else can you do?
If people don’t want to pay, then they don’t actually value the news. I pay for publications that I trust and want to continue reading. The key is finding a niche where the news organization can produce quality reporting that people actually value. “Free News” is just another ad business.
Significantly fewer people would pay for objective reporting than for, say, Fox News.
Partly because Fox News would be much cheaper.
Re: Making the news available at no cost is a victory
#9Making newsrooms beholden to donors is not ideal, but it's better than being beholden to advertisers.
...is there a difference? The donors tend to have just as much of an agenda to push
I think the point is that the donors should have an another political agenda than the political agenda of whatever companies that pays for ads.
Re: Making the news available at no cost is a victory
#10Making newsrooms beholden to donors is not ideal, but it's better than being beholden to advertisers.
...is there a difference? The donors tend to have just as much of an agenda to push
It might also be the case that one single "donor" puts in like 60% of the budget.
But that is also no different from one single client being 60% of your revenue.
In both cases, they'll be calling some shots.