It is absolute rubbish that quality journalism must be supported by paywalls. You don’t have to look far to find exceptions. It’s a weak argument, unsupported by facts.
Nonprofit models (ProPublica, NPR, PBS) keep journalism open by shifting revenue away from per-reader paywalls.
NP outfits like the Texas Tribune and Cal Matters aren’t exactly flush with cash, but are finding ways to do the work.
Wire services (Reuters, AP) fund reporting through institutional clients instead of individual …
subscriptions.
Reader-supported but open (The Guardian, MotherJones, Axios ) use voluntary contribution rather than hard restrictions.
Of course, none of them can support the big salaries of the big papers of old. But nobody ever said a career in journalism had to be as profitable as medicine, dentistry, or owning a Payday loan outlet.
The issue is not whether journalism has to be paid for, it does. But who pays, how, and how much is the only real issue. “They can just go to the library” …
It’s fair to say after a half century of conservative predominance in public policy that everything about them is a total social failure.
The only way they can get any traction is to accuse “the left“ of the very things they intend to do
Shoq
GhostOnTheHalfShell