|
|
|
|
|
|
by a257
1559 days ago
|
|
|
Is a non-profit-based press necessarily a better thing? I'm not entirely convinced that FOSS-like press is the better alternative -- open source has its own fair share of problems. When it comes to low-quality journalism today, I notice that most (if not all) of the notorious cases follow a pattern where the shttier the news the cheaper it is. Could it be that journalistic quality is proportional to the costs the reader has to pay? If so, rather than seeking a news source untainted by monetary interests, wouldn't it be more productive to seek costly news sources with individual interests you are clearly aware of? |
|
|
I’m not looking for “free as in beer” press. Journalism takes effort that is real and should be remunerated. Without that, all you get is people who have an incentive to broadcast their version of the truth based on some other feedback that usually boils down to propaganda/proselyting/evangelism.
What I’m looking for is to have the profit motive detached from the news. I was intrigued when Jon Huntsman bought the Salt Like Tribune and changed it to a non profit organization a couple of years ago. I’m not a regular reader of the Trib, since I live up in Washington state these days, so I don’t know if it’s made a real difference. I read the occasional article from it, and it seems less click baity and sensationalistic, but I couldn’t say that with any depth.
But I do think there is an irreconcilable conflict of interest when you want to publicize information AND make a profit from it. It’s been there for a long time, but the precision of analytics feedback has moved that conflict up a whole notch in the digital age.