A sad day for more than 120 #AssociatedPress employees as the organization announced that it is having to close down its newspaper-focused business, which represents only 10% of its revenue and is shrinking. More buyouts are expected.

The general public does not seem to value information quality, and at this point only governments will be able to sustain quality #journalism. https://apnews.com/article/news-industry-buyouts-ap-newspapers-dd790effc6a385514b3323560161ea4f

AP says it will offer buyouts, part of pivot from newspaper-focused history

The Associated Press says it will offer buyouts to an unspecified number of its U.S.-based journalists as part of an acceleration away from the focus on newspapers and their print journalism that sustained the company for more than 1½ centuries. The news organization is becoming more focused on visual journalism and developing new revenue sources, particularly through companies investing in artificial intelligence. That's to cope with the economic collapse of many legacy news outlets. Once the lion’s share of AP’s revenue, big newspaper companies now account for 10% of its income. Julie Pace, AP's executive editor, says that “we’re not a newspaper company and we haven’t been for quite some time.

AP News

@mattsheffield

Do you know, with the track record of governments around the world, I'm not entirely sure that they can sustain the quality of facts for us all.

@ColinHaynes What's your alternative, I'm curious.

@mattsheffield tricky one isn't it. We (UK) used to have newspapers of record but that has fallen by the wayside.

I'm ok with Wikipedia and facts, but that's not news and isn't setup to move as fast as papers/TV.

BBC Verify does a pretty good job at fact checking right now (and I'm happy that it isn't government run).

I'm not sure however that the UK or US governments have been or should be trusted to tell me what are facts. It's inherent in politics that this can't work I don't think.

@ColinHaynes The BBC is a government owned agency. It's funded by taxes.

I'm calling for separate agencies that cannot be interfered with by politicians.

@mattsheffield well the system of checks and balances seems to have failed in the US so I'm not sure that's possible.

And it's a matter for debate how independent the BBC is from the UK government. It's also funded by households paying a licence fee, not taxes.

@ColinHaynes

Ultimately, there is going to have to be a Reverse Marshall Plan. American politicians failed to preserve information quality. This is why everything bad happened here ultimately.

Regarding the BBC, a license in every other application is money paid to perform a paid service or sell a product. The BBC fee provides no commercial privileges to payers, so it is not a license. It is a tax.

@mattsheffield but not everyone has to pay the licence. Even if they have a television.

Not a tax.

@mattsheffield anyway. I've distracted myself.

I'm not sure how a reverse Marshall Plan would be funded without taxation?

My view of the US right now is that it doesn't matter a damn how many checks and balances are written down, if a government wants to ignore them, it will and therefore the US system is incapable of producing anything independent from government interference.

In the UK, the BBC is not by any stretch perfect, least of all the News & Current Affairs but it's the best we have.