As regular readers know, I have long been a great admirer of the work that Glenn Greenwald does. In a recent essay he discusses reader-funded journalism which he thinks is the way that quality news will be generated in the future, because it will enable writers to free themselves from the clutches of big corporate media entities and thus not be confined by their boundaries of what constitutes ‘acceptable’ journalism or commentary. It is an interesting take, worth reading for those who care about ensuring quality news media.
He also mentions his annual fundraiser to help support his work and I urge those who believe in this type of journalism to contribute here.
*thumbsup*
While y’all are at it, random readers, recall that the Manning trial transcripts are only public due to the work of two professional stenographers, supported by the FPF via crowdfunding. They could use donations, too.
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/bradley-manning-transcripts
I wonder what would stop the Glenn Beck or Alex Jones effect, though. Major media corporations have the ability (though not the desire) to give air time to serious, but boring, news. If a journalist is always after the next big donation, then that’s an incentive to make every day the most important day and every news story a life and death freak out. And worse, there’s the incentive to have “exclusive” information nobody else has access to, which is best created rather than discovered.
Major corporations are doing this same thing, I know, but I see how we can work to make our current media system more functional. I do not see how freelance, crowdsourced media will carry those same checks and balances.
I’d rather stick with the soup that just needs a little salt than dump it out and try again. But I am willing to be convinced.
I see this as readers paying a subscription regularly to certain journalists to keep them going. I am think of a dozen or so journalists to whom I would willingly pay a regular amount, just like paying for a magazine.
It is still early days. Let’s see how it shakes out. The key is that I think there are enough people who are willing to pay for solid reporting and there are enough journalists to want to do it. The trick is to match them up. There have been models before in the pre-internet days. I am thinking of legendary journalist I. F. Stone who published a weekly newsletter that people subscribed to. The internet should make that easier.
We also have the NPR/PBS model, flawed as it is.