[vrdabomb5717]

I think funding mass media is less interesting than finding a way to have sustainable investigative journalism, both at the local and national levels. Investigative journalism, especially at the local level, has been hit hard by local newspapers getting shut down and the media forced to either pull out of unprofitable areas or focus on money-making ventures. Most media outlets are not the New York Times or Washington Post; they can't afford to send reporters out for months to put together enough evidence to run a long-form story. The end result though is that most media outlets focus on what attracts viewers and makes them money: partisan commentary, stories that spread FUD, and feel-good stories. The end result is that government and business officials can run amok without anyone holding them accountable.

Let mass media focus on general-interest stories and slowly become reality TV for reality. If we instead focus on investigative journalism, we'll have a way for journalists to provide unbiased content without depending on the mass media to provide the funding to do so.

[pcmaffey]

So long as journalists are paid with ad dollars, content will always trend towards the lowest common denominator.

This applies to all media in general; but there really needs to be a better metric for quantifying impact than clicks. If writers, etc. are rewarded for advancing knowledge, then many many more people would be enabled to do so.

Hell, perhaps we don't even need a new metic, and instead just subsidize everyone with UBI. Those who provide long-term value will outweigh those who only consume.

[eggdude]

UBI is exactly what I thought of. Another reason why those who are in control would want to avoid it.

It seems like it will still require a lot of money to publish quality journalism in sources that people actually look at.

[hueving]

>Those who provide long-term value will outweigh those who only consume.

Is there any evidence supporting this?

[pcmaffey]

It's a good question, and really, the crux of the whole issue. I don't have evidence, just belief... The value of incremental knowledge, and of lives lived without scarcity consciousness, when measured across large enough time-scale, could have exponential impact on humanity (snowball effect). Whereas the cost of UBI, while large, is relatively linear.

Hopefully, some of the experiments on UBI can start to provide the evidence.

[hueving]

I suppose what I'm asking is are there are enough resources to allow UBI right now with a major chunk of the labor force (and subsequently tax income) disappearing?

[toomuchtodo]

We're going to find out regardless, with large swaths of retirees leaving the labor force to join Social Security.

[prawn]

UBI plus more open information for the hobbyists to look through.

[ThomPete]

Sustainable investigative journalism is most likely going to solve itself by technologies and access to information and so it makes little sense to want to focus on that as a business category IMO. Making it sustainable is a byproduct of the technologies, tools and legislative work we develop.

In fact one of the best tools is already here we are using it right now. It's never been as cheap to do as it is right now.

A good example:

https://medium.com/@danmunro/why-i-believe-my-theranos-blood...

People in general don't pay for investigative journalism and so it's never going to be a business category in itself and never have been.

The closest thing we have is something like WikiLeaks or what Snowden did.

[discodave]

Your answer isn't even consistent with itself.

> Sustainable investigative journalism is most likely going to solve itself

This sounds like your saying the business model for investigative journalism is obvious and easy.

> People in general don't pay for investigative journalism and so it's never going to be a business category in itself

This shows that you actually don't think it's solvable / there is no business model. If it's being done as charity or thankless hard work then I don't think that's solved.

[ThomPete]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough so for that, I apologies.

So what I am basically saying is that investigative journalism IS already sustainable it's just not a business.

It's if anything a process or a number of very loosely defined processes if even that.

The process is going to cost whatever it cost to investigate whatever it is you want to investigate and the only way to make it "sustainable" (cheaper) is through the development of other areas which has nothing to do with that process.

The link I reference shows a pretty simple, cheap and powerful form of investigative journalism (he more or proved Theranos was not working).

If you want to break into the US military and steal their secrets it's going to take your whisteblowers to get the information.

So trying to put it into a business context is misleading as it's just really a broad area of snooping around hoping to find some dirt.

[tomahunt]

It's a very interesting problem. Look, for example, at the large and provocative studies of Herman and Chomsky [1,2] and trying to remove the bias that exists in mass media, especially the self censorship. There must be many studies of these problems that are more recent [3] and include the role of the internet.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

[3] "The Propaganda Model after 20 years..." https://chomsky.info/200911__/

[lifeisstillgood]

I can only see tax dollars funding this approach - the BBC is the clear up on a pedestal example of this, and sometimes you have to say, the market sucks at fixing some issues.

[Alex3917]

Exactly. Everyone in the U.S. gets taxed a couple bucks a month, and it gets apportioned among independent (not advertising supported) content creators based on page views, ratings, and whatever other factors. This is probably the only way to fix the problem.

[cloudjacker]

State run media is actually very good at solving the problems you find aggravating.

99% of useful news has nothing to do with the things you imagine state run news will be bad at informing you about. It is a world without sensational click bait. The 1% of the time some journalist goes missing, well thats what WeChat is for.

[Animats]

The Voice of America RSS feeds [1] are mostly clickbait-free. It's officially the position of the US Government, but has a long tradition of being neutral to the point of blandness. To try to drum up more interest, there are now some more tabloid-like feeds, such as "VOA Fast Five".

The VOA's judgment on what's important is a lot better than most of the US media, where click-through rates seem to determine placement.

[1] http://www.voanews.com/rss.html

[danieltillett]

I agree 100%. I actually have worried about this problem for a long time and I have come up with quite a lot of clever ideas (well I think they are clever) to solve this problem. Pity I don't have any time :(

[fspacef]

Pls do share.

[danieltillett]

The ideas are a bit too long for a post here on HN, but if people are serious about wanting to pursue a startup in this area then get in contact with me [1].

I know there are lots of people wanting to start a startup who feel they don’t have any good ideas so if this is an area you are passionate about then I am happy to talk. I am in the lucky position of having the financial resources to fund a new startup, but because I am busy running my own business, I just don't have the time to do it myself. When I was younger I had lots of time and no money, now I am older I have the lots of money and no time :(

1. I am pretty easy to find and do a background check on.

[bpchaps]

I'd be very interested! This is a field that I recently became extremely interested in and even met up with my lawyer earlier today to discuss a bulk FOIA research project. I left a comment on your blog with contact info if you're interested in talking. :)

[danieltillett]

I just sent you an email :)