[flukus]

> Local news organizations have always been required to maintain two competencies - advertising and journalism. This predates Google News, Google, and indeed the internet.

3. Distribution.

News organisations like the music industry before them need to realize that a huge part of what people used to pay them for was the reliable distribution of their product. This and the markup on it was where they made their profits and now its gone.

[eiaoa]

> News organisations like the music industry before them need to realize that a huge part of what people used to pay them for was the reliable distribution of their product. This and the markup on it was where they made their profits and now its gone.

A viable, independent media is vital to a well-functioning democracy. I just realized that the implication decision behind of all this talk (about how the new media need to find a viable business model) is that our system of government shouldn't stand unless some of its vital organs are profitable in a dog-eat-dog capitalist system. Capitalism is given a higher priority than democracy.

[flukus]

> our system of government shouldn't stand unless some of its vital organs are profitable in a dog-eat-dog capitalist system

Plenty of countries get around this with independent but government funded media, the BBC in the UK, ABC in Australia, etc. I guess NPR is probably the closest thing in the US. They do a better job at reporting the news than most commercial providers and their sites are a lot less crapware infested (but getting worse), compare this (https://www.abc.net.au/news/) to just about any commercial news organisation.

The only problem I've ever had with the ABC is that it's crap at local news.

[eiaoa]

> Plenty of countries get around this with independent but government funded media

Yeah, that's kinda what I was getting at. I don't recall the conversation advancing in that direction very often.

> The only problem I've ever had with the ABC is that it's crap at local news.

I honestly think local news is the main problem. I'm not super pessimistic about the NYT, the WSJ, or the Washington Post. They have the prestige and the reach to attract lots of subscribers and/or patrons, and they're big enough to invest heavily in technology. It's the small local and regional papers that worry me. The staff per eyeball to cover all their beats is probably a lot less favorable, and they don't have much prestige to draw on to attract other support.

[Kalium]

> Capitalism is given a higher priority than democracy.

Given the American historical experience with politically aligned papers, I think we might be well-advised to consider the failure modes of state-owned media. To put it another way, we rely on capitalism to support democracy because the alternatives we've tried did not produce a vibrant, independent media. Instead, they produces one bound and beholden to our politics.

Have you ever wondered what the "Free" in "Detroit Free Press" referred to?

But, let's skip past that for the moment. Let's assume that infinite independence is possible. How does one go about having effective press at the required local level in a cost-effective way? Being cost-effective is pretty important for anything that might need to function without being profitable, after all.