> Mass layoffs are tearing through US media. To preserve a functioning media ecosystem, we need three things: immediate aid to struggling journalists, public subsidies to smaller news outlets, and eventually industry transformation into a publicly funded system.<p>People don't seem to want what we're selling. So the government should tax them, then give us the money to continue providing what they've demonstrated they don't want. Did I get that right?
Reporters whose paycheck depends upon government subsidies, what could go wrong? I feel like I see this pattern a lot where people see a changing industry with a lot of legacy companies struggling to adapt and their first inclination is to step in with the government to save them/prop them up. I say let them sort it out and try to adapt. They might not be successful but at least we won’t be stuck propping them up.
I can hardly think of any media publications that are still relevant, and worth subscribing to--and they're all business related (FT, Barrons, Economist). Anything that used to be a hobby (music, photography, etc.) has now moved onto another medium like YouTube. It's sad because I used to absolutely love browsing magazine stands, but now the content is already 3-4 months out dated and usually just a regurgitation (without citation) or something that already circulated online.
Too much consolidation in media. Local and alternative voices fade. (IMO)<p>The solution to monopolies is not to rubber-stamp them into existence. HN folks can probably rattle off hundreds of great ideas and innovations from small companies that were bought -- ideas and innovations which just disappeared or were turned into milquetoast.<p>The internet brings both rather universal self-publishing and the network effect.
People will only outlay their limited cash on things that seem to 'have value'.<p>Do the products of the modern media companies have any 'value'?<p>IIRC there was a US president whose name I have forgotten who often complained about media companies producing very little but 'Fake News'. Fake News has no 'value' at all. Those companies deserve to die.
>Mass layoffs are tearing through US media. To preserve a functioning media ecosystem, we need three things: immediate aid to struggling journalists, public subsidies to smaller news outlets, and eventually industry transformation into a publicly funded system.<p>Could she work harder to undermine her own point with this whiny intro
I mean, who didn't see this coming when companies like Clear Channel started buying and homogenizing everything they could get their grubby hands on?
Collapsing because of technological changes, and most journalists being clickbaiters and liars.<p>IMHO, it's better we're left with the few successful media houses (WSJ, Reuters, AP, Bloomberg, etc.) carrying the industry on its backs, the rest should be free to fizzle out in a free market...times have changed.
> public subsidies to smaller news outlets, and eventually industry transformation into a publicly funded system<p>Ah yes, state run media, Pravda and Isvestia! Always the same result, state-approved propaganda.
I remember when NPR was outraged at the suggestion that government funding influenced their slant on the news, as they weren't dependent on the government funding they received. So just stop accepting the funding!
>Mass layoffs are tearing through US media.<p>I dont agree with the assumed premise. Article provides some examples but at best it's irrelevant lay offs. Failing media outlets are always going to exist.<p>>To preserve a functioning media ecosystem, we need three things: immediate aid to struggling journalists<p>You can look to us in Canada. The government gives the media money, the political interference continued to ramp up until a crisis.<p>The government has absolutely no business funding the media.