Why YSK: good journalism has a lot of costs (and not one-time-only), in time if not in money, so if any "news" source isn't at least trying to get paid somehow*, then it indicates that the supply at zero price exceeds the demand (it is a "free good"), which means ~~one of two things~~:
Edit: After a lot of discussion and some more thought on my part, I am no longer sure that a single binary choice captures all the possibilities here. The concept of a "free good" is a standard one in economics, with essentially the definition I gave above, and it is still true that most journalism comes with significant costs (and not just in money). So, if there is no effort being made to recover that cost (e.g. by asking for charitable donations, or some other significant material contributions like volunteer work), then I don't see how that "journalism" can be legitimate.
The point I was trying to make is that, e.g., internet sites that claim to offer vast amounts of easy, "quality" information (and it is questionable what that even means), on a regular, ongoing basis, but ask absolutely nothing from anyone in return, are likely some kind of scam. Because, if that were actually true, then they would have no way of actually supporting themselves on a long-term basis. Some people don't care about long-term sustainability, of course, but they don't tend to stay around for very long.
Original text follows.
-
a lot of people like and use it but the publisher, or someone backing them, is still paying the substantial costs associated with investigating/researching, editing, and hosting it (and are arguably being quite charitable), or
-
not many people find it useful or access it often, but it is still being offered/promoted by someone who has some other motive (not necessarily nefarious, but also not all that charitable).
If the latter, but they still publish timely coverage of "newsworthy" events, which would otherwise make a lot more people want to read it, then they ~~are likely~~ may be (edited) "tabloid"/"propaganda"/"yellow journalism"/"clickbait"/"listicle"/whatever term people are using today for "not a very credible news source".
* Even if that's through asking for charitable donations, though that unfortunately is often not very successful despite the fact that, one might argue, when you benefit and have the financial means to pay but don't, then that is unethical.
Also, note that the existence of barriers to unfettered use can be considered a kind of "price" (from the "buyer's" perspective at least), which is both annoying and can serve to limit the "quantity demanded", making it easier to keep the "quantity supplied" high enough to meet the demand.
I’d suggest that a key exception to this is for state-funded, independent broadcasters such as the BBC, Deutsche Welle, the Australian ABC, NPR etc.
Because they have a profit-motive removed, I find that the quality of their journalism can often be higher than commercial media. Not always true (and it’s becoming increasingly untrue) but it’s the most common form of journalism that is both free to consume and of a relatively high quality.
Oh, don't get me wrong, state-funded broadcasters can be excellent (or horrible, it really depends on the details). But when they are good, I would count them under the first case: they are being backed by the state itself (being charitable), and a lot of people like you use and love them.
Public funding is a double-edged sword: it lets news reporters not worry about profiting, but focus on their actual job instead; and it also lets "news" agencies that stopped caring about reporting truth a long time ago not worry about needing to actually be useful to the public at large, instead only needing to keep the government decision-makers happy.
Really comes down to the political system that backs it and the way it's handled.
Yes, I think I agree, and I think there is more to be said here but I am tired. So I'll sleep on it and maybe add something more later if I can think of anything useful. 🙂
I'm unfamiliar with two of those, but I know BBC and NPR quite well. I'd be careful with believing that state media is "independent" just because it's written down somewhere that it is. Whatever they might say, it's still the government providing a great deal of their funding, and that same government can raise or lower the money they get.
The BBC is notoriously slanted to the right, but I think gets its reputation laundered somewhat by American Democrats because the American center if much further to the right than Britain's. When you see how the Tories have attacked them so viciously for having a "left bias" (which is bullshit), it seems reasonable to guess that part of this drift is self-preservation of the organization at the cost of its usefulness to people other than Tories.
NPR toes the Dem line slavishly, inviting to some extent attacks from the right (as Dem-aligned corporate news also does) but rarely even acknowledging that there is a left beyond them (as Dem-aligned corporate news also does).
I have reconsidered some of what I said before, and edited the post text to reflect that. I would like to know what you think.