Staying Alive came out in the American Journalism Review. The article talks about the struggles of old media to keep journalists, and steady revenue streams, and how new media has had a similarly difficult time financially. One of the differences is the adaptability of new media, and the fact that its costs can be extremely low relative to a large scale operation like the New York Times. The impetus for this post is regarding a comment made by Stephen Engelberg of ProPublica in "Staying Alive." He said that the ideal business model for ProPublica would be something, "like a very good museum. It charges people to come in and also raises good money."
I believe there is something deeply wrong with this model. Journalism is a public service - a requirement for every voting member of a democracy to consume. Information is not a privilege, it is a right. I am not ignorant of the financial realities confronting media of all types. New business models are required to meet the technological and social developments of our time. However, charging admission for journalism is not an acceptable business model. The cost to consume an organization's journalism would eliminate the readership of at least some of the poorest of this country, and the world. This would keep the poor ignorant, and therefore effectively disenfranchise significant portions of our voting population. What's more, this is the same population that is the most vulnerable to political outcomes.
Simply put, a cover charge for journalism keeps political information away from the individuals that most need it because they are the most affected by political goings on.
No comments:
Post a Comment