> I assure you their editorial departments would be overjoyed if you've discovered a new business model that works without advertising.
A radical take: not all businesses currently funded by advertisement should exist.
A less radical take: if the audience feels that CNN/Fox/MSNBC provide a valuable service to them, they will be willing to pay for it directly. If "the people" feel that a news service benefits society as a whole, it can be funded through taxes, like the BBC.
So in an American context... NPR and PBS exclusively then? Because people have proven for quite a long time that they are not willing to foot the bill.
(I'm from Canada so our equivalent would be CBC and TVO.)
My guess is that if advertising was banned, the news media would become even more reliant on billionaires to keep them going, and I can't imagine that's healthy for a democracy. I know advertisers have impacted editorial decisions as well (especially really big advertisers who threaten to pull their ads), but I think that would be many times worse if a paper or TV station was entirely dependant on one or two people to stay afloat.
> So in an American context... NPR and PBS exclusively then? Because people have proven for quite a long time that they are not willing to foot the bill.
New York Times, The Young Turks, etc. If people aren't willing to foot the bill, then that's fine. The market-niche will be freed up for another business to take a better and more sustainable approach.
> My guess is that if advertising was banned, the news media would become even more reliant on billionaires to keep them going, and I can't imagine that's healthy for a democracy. I know advertisers have impacted editorial decisions as well (especially really big advertisers who threaten to pull their ads), but I think that would be many times worse if a paper or TV station was entirely dependant on one or two people to stay afloat.
Billionaires are not healthy for a democracy. The fact that the news media has to exploit their credibility with the audience to compete with a few wealthy individuals is a testament to that.
> If people aren't willing to foot the bill, then that's fine. The market-niche will be freed up for another business to take a better and more sustainable approach.
There's nothing stopping other business models to take hold, unless of course those business models are insufficient to support the operation.
Also, NYT is supported by a $250 million loan from billionaire Carlos Slim.
So you are replacing state benevolence with the advertising industry's benevolence :).
If the news/media organizations cannot survive and profit without either help, then shouldn't they be allowed to wither ? Instead of imposing this garbage on everyone, young ones included. Or do we consider them an essential industry now ?
BTW, that news is important is also a "need" created by advertising, so that, .... they can show more ads :).
> I assure you their editorial departments would be overjoyed if you've discovered a new business model that works without advertising.
A radical take: not all businesses currently funded by advertisement should exist.
A less radical take: if the audience feels that CNN/Fox/MSNBC provide a valuable service to them, they will be willing to pay for it directly. If "the people" feel that a news service benefits society as a whole, it can be funded through taxes, like the BBC.