There Are Lots Of Ways To Fund Journalism
from the if-you-look-around dept
As various folks in the news business (and outside of it) continue to fret about how it could be possible to ever fund the production of news, some are taking more positive looks at the space. Jay Rosen has listed out 18 different sources of subsidies for funding journalism (or journalism-like) work. Some of them are better than others, but it's a useful list to get you a thinking. Full disclosure: a part of our own business model is on the list. Along those lines, since people have been saying nice stuff about our business model, Jesse Hirsh has a way-too-nice writeup about our CwF+RtB experiment, which I still think is a bit short of a full business model, but is getting closer. Based on our experiences with it, we're getting more and more ideas on how to fund not just journalism, but all sorts of content creation.And, really, that's the idea. There are lots of different ideas and experiments going on -- and many of them are showing early signs of success, and I'm sure more will come along at a later date that are even more successful. Really, the only ones complaining and demanding changes to the law are those who represent the old way of doing things, and don't want to change. They talk up all sorts of horror stories and moral panics about how "journalism" or "music" or "movies" are going to go away -- despite the fact that we actually have more of all three of those things happening today than at any time in history. Based on that faulty reasoning, they demand special protection not for "journalism" "music" or "movies" but for the old business models and old institutions that produced all three.
Eventually, as these new business models and new institutions work themselves out, it'll suddenly seem "obvious" what the right answers were, and people will forget the hundreds if not thousands of different experiments -- both good and bad -- that went into developing the new model. It's a time of upheaval, for sure, but there's no indication that there's any real risk to the production of content. Just a few businesses that got big and don't want to change with the times.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: business models, funding, jay rosen, journalism
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not at the same level. Most often you are trading one major league (inset item here) for a dozen minor leaguers. Sort of like killing major league baseball, and then claiming baseball is on the rise because 100 new pre-teen teams have started up for the next season.
Aggregate volume? Sure. That warms an economist's heart. But quality, content, public visiblity? Things lost in the shuffle to make the largest number of widgets, I guess.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Additionally, if major league was gone, the exhorbitant amounts of money spent on it could help fund far more baseball at the lower levels. I understand the natural desire to be bigger, but bigger isn't always better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
And that the government should subsidize their enemas and IV lines and diabetes pills and somehow keep the new young players from competing, because then all the rabble will get to profit from baseball instead of the old timers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
not to mention that bigger is less adaptable to change. sure, you get economies of scale and the like, but if the market changes, then the changes you make will have to be large scale as well, meaning slow and costly.
part of the problem with "major leagues" not changing with the times is that there is so much involved with changing a big institution. i would imagine that to many content types, it seems easier to change the market and punish consumers than it would be to change internally.
it's like changing the course of a ship: a battleship can't turn quickly, can't turn sharply, and can't turn often. attempting to do so could be disastrous. smaller ships can turn quick, sharp, and often and suffer far less when doing so.
also, if there is a large number of small ships, some can turn in a variety of directions while others maintain their present courses. if some of them sink there is less impact than the loss of a single large ship.
so while the loss of "major league" content production is inevitable it's not a bad thing, on the contrary, it's a very good thing. smaller, more specialized firms will emerge to deliver content that is more tailored to specific customer interests.
this trend is already apparent: since i can get news from anywhere, i choose to get my national news from british papers (the BBC, the telegraph, and the guardian) even though i am american and live in the US. i find that the british view of the US contains way less spin than CNN, fox news, or the new york times.
i am sure brits will tell you that the beeb and the others are just as corrupt as their american counterparts, but the difference is that british papers have fewer american advertisers, owe less to the american government, and therefore are more likely to be objective.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reminds me of this quote...
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
- Arthur Schopenhauer
Ridiculed - "They're letting people decide how much they want to pay for the album! Ha! How stupid!"
Violently opposed - "We have to have this new law so that our profits, uh...I mean the profits of the artists we represent are protected!"
Accepted as self-evident - "Well, duh. Everyone knows that selling t-shirts was the solution all along." ;-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
No ridicule, just an obvious thought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yeah, a high earning spouse. Great list. Just cause you are on it doesn't mean its a good list. This article should have started with "And now a word from our sponsor" or maybe "we paid for this list"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
sarcasm included.
exact emoticon meaning varies by user, but most have a general... range.
this is more elaboration than correction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
When I saw that, I thought how true for music. The standard joke among musicians is, "What is a musician without a girlfriend?"
"Homeless."
At least Rosen is acknowledging reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Don't sell newspapers, sell t-shirts.
Don't sell music, sell t-shirts.
Don't sell movies, sell t-shirts.
It's a cover all of the concept of selling people what they don't want, and giving away what they do want.
As a business model, it becomes glaringly more stupid as the days go by.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Other than the fact that it, you know... works.
Whereas trying to sell what is abundantly available, does not.
I like living in reality where we focus on what works, rather than pretending that what does not work really really should work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]