The problem is that journalists do not understand the basic concepts of economics. The news is non-rival non-excludable public good like air or sunshine. By its nature news itself can not have a price.
A journalist does not add any value when writes about some other people doing something and this is being public knowledge. Previously this type of information technically differentiated paper they sold. So, people paid for the differentiated paper. Not for the news per se. Internet provided free distribution and there is no more paper to sell. Hence, nothing to pay for.
Exactly the same happened to the music industry when it was selling plastic--CDs--differentiated by music bits on it. When distribution digital become free and people stopped buying CDs the industry collapsed and only Spotify revived it with an innovative business model. And now people pay for easy access, for service, not for the music.
So, for the press, it is only specialized information and analysis are worth paying for. It's unique POV or data that adds value should really have a price. Just news is a loss leader to attract an audience in this equation. Exactly the same like Stratechery, for example, publishes free weekly posts and podcast to get the audience to pay for daily analysis.
When the press, in general, understand basic economic forces, it will be able to be sustainable. Readers do not need a gazillion of bloggers calling themselves journalists that write basically exactly the same news about an event or device that require effectively zero experience except typing. The price for this is exactly zero. This is a marketing expense to attract users for the real thing.
But there are not so many outlets that produce that real thing. Most produce instant junk news that has zero value and think that this should make a living.
A journalist does not add any value when writes about some other people doing something and this is being public knowledge. Previously this type of information technically differentiated paper they sold. So, people paid for the differentiated paper. Not for the news per se. Internet provided free distribution and there is no more paper to sell. Hence, nothing to pay for.
Exactly the same happened to the music industry when it was selling plastic--CDs--differentiated by music bits on it. When distribution digital become free and people stopped buying CDs the industry collapsed and only Spotify revived it with an innovative business model. And now people pay for easy access, for service, not for the music.
So, for the press, it is only specialized information and analysis are worth paying for. It's unique POV or data that adds value should really have a price. Just news is a loss leader to attract an audience in this equation. Exactly the same like Stratechery, for example, publishes free weekly posts and podcast to get the audience to pay for daily analysis.
When the press, in general, understand basic economic forces, it will be able to be sustainable. Readers do not need a gazillion of bloggers calling themselves journalists that write basically exactly the same news about an event or device that require effectively zero experience except typing. The price for this is exactly zero. This is a marketing expense to attract users for the real thing.
But there are not so many outlets that produce that real thing. Most produce instant junk news that has zero value and think that this should make a living.