[PaulDavisThe1st]

It's an odd problem. What newspapers have done historically with respect to reporting on local politics is almost unquestionably a social good. It's also inarguable that they've done so as businesses, funded by advertising for the most part. That has worked because people wanted to pay a little bit (each) to read them and advertisers were willing to pay a lot (in aggregate) to reach those readers.

So what's changed? Advertisers are less interested in the medium itself. Meanwhile, readers have built a very low estimate of the value of journalism.

But what is that estimate based on? Suppose that as citizens we all accepted that local political reporting was absolutely vital to our society, and that without it we would face an unmitigated wave of corruption and worse. How much would we each pay to avoid that?

I understand that people don't accept that news journalism is that vital, and that this affects their estimate of the value. But are they correct?