You’re still assuming that serious journalism was always subsidized either by some other business (printing) or by external funding from a rich person. That’s not necessarily true. Many serious newspapers were self-supporting through advertising.
If you’re saying that a publisher could have chosen to make more profits by peddling smut, that’s a different issue. It still doesn’t make a going concern into a “hobby.”
That dull thudding is my head hitting the desk.
I have only limited respect for working journalists because - as a consequence of being an insider to a number of significant stories - I know their reporting is often not accurate. You are not helping.
Okay so this is going to descend into general defamation of working journalists based on anecdotes? What this has to with the business model if journalism in the last I don’t know.
Thank you Acsenray, for your insight.
I’m Australian.
That might not, but the stuff I was talking about (people using social media to regularly report on local events) certainly does.
That’s been how it works (advertising supported) for so long it’s not funny. The only major traditional outlet I’m aware of that’s run on the “Our Benefactor” model is The Guardian (affectionately known as The Grauniad because of its legendary proneness to typos); which is backed up by the Scott Trust (now the Scott Trust Limited).
And the last time I checked, the Guardian - which, despite doing a lot of extremely serious and worthy journalism - was haemorraging money in Australia, even with advertising support.
And on the topic of revenue, perhaps you’d care to address the points I’ve made around there being no advertising revenue anymore? That’s basically why newspapers are in a Vortex of Doom.