[egonschiele]

Right, but what I'm saying is this is the best choice we have right now. You are trying to choose a fantasy choice that does not exist. You current choices are:

1. Let the news die.

2. Pay for the news, suck up the fact that it has advertising.

3. Don't pay for the news and hope the rest of us pay for it so it doesn't die.

Your "option 4: news without advertising" does not exist. It may in the future, but only if ENOUGH OF US PAY FOR A SUBSCRIPTION SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO RELY ON ADVERTISING.

[na85]

I choose option 1 of course. That is objectively the best choice.

The news orgs that will survive are the ones that secure arm's length public funding such as NPR, CBC, BBC, et al.

If Fox or CNN goes bankrupt nothing of value will be lost.

[0goel0]

You are mistaken and are myopic. Fox or CNN are not the ones at stake here.

The local newsroom that do the important work of disseminating disaster information, local election information are what's at stake.

40-some millions US residents still don't have reliable or fast Internet. Millions don't have any Internet at all. How do you expect to keep up with their own community and the world?

[na85]

I'm having trouble following your logic. You're suggesting that because I'm not willing to pay for $big_name_newscorp, that somehow this will cause local newsrooms (that I would not be subscribing to anyways) to go bankrupt? And also that I somehow bear moral responsibility to keep these newsrooms afloat?

[egonschiele]

To be fair, he didn't say Fox or CNN were at stake.

[_v7gu]

There will be no equilibrium without ads if you are okay with paying even with ads.

[egonschiele]

So how do you suggest getting to that equilibrium?