Several people have responded in ways that suggest I'm talking about publicly funding a single news source. That's not at all what I'm suggesting.
Rather, it's creating a public fund for numerous news and informational sources. How many, what qualifications they should have, and how they are individually compensated is a further element of this discussion, but all of that's secondary to the point that what I'm calling for is not a single unitary Ministry of News, but for a many entities, preferably with multiple funding streams whether governmental (at local / regional / state / federal levels), ISP / connectivity provider fees, or other indirect funding sources (subscriptions, memberships, sponsorships, foundations, philanthropy, advertising, legal notices, distribution and/or production subsidies).
> many entities, preferably with multiple funding streams whether governmental (at local / regional / state / federal levels), ISP / connectivity provider fees, or other indirect funding sources (subscriptions, memberships, sponsorships, foundations, philanthropy, advertising, legal notices, distribution and/or production subsidies).
This is broad enough to include every funding source, and you're back to describing the status quo. All of these funding sources are available currently, and they're evidently not enough. The thesis just morphs from "why won't people pay for news?" to "why won't people politically organize to create quasi-public well funded media apparatuses?"
The difference is a funding floor in the form of a diversified, universally-applied funding basis, in the form of taxes (at multiple governmental levels) and/or an ISP-implemented media fee. Media and journalism generally presently lack this, and are suffering badly for it.
The reframing question is fair, but asking why people won't pay directly for subscriptions under the present model remains a useful excercise, and is what I've attempted here.
In TFA you say it should be funded "on a progressive basis", how do you suggest this be implemented? Most funding sources you suggest cannot discriminate based on user income; ISP fees, subscriptions, advertising... none of these can be applied progressively. You're really back down to more income taxation.
To a first approximation, varying fee by average neigbbourhood income might accomplish much of this. An assessment baked into income taxes (state or federal) could of course accomplish this directly.
Offering different pricing tiers is another option, with a "basic" package that includes most sources, and one or more premium tiers which includes either greater availablity, or more immediate / current access to, entertainment and sport content, for example.
Basic informational content, including news and cultural lore (classic books, movies, music, etc.) would be in the basic tier.
> news and cultural lore (classic books, movies, music, etc.)
Is the aim to recreate a state directed facsimile of the entire media ecosystem? All of this seems totally redundant to the market offerings, just now with bureaucratic overhead and the removal of personal choice, but it's tax funded so it's somehow better?
It'd be simpler just to collect progressive taxes and give cash to the poor, who can pay for news and media (or food) according to their own preferences.
Rather, it's creating a public fund for numerous news and informational sources. How many, what qualifications they should have, and how they are individually compensated is a further element of this discussion, but all of that's secondary to the point that what I'm calling for is not a single unitary Ministry of News, but for a many entities, preferably with multiple funding streams whether governmental (at local / regional / state / federal levels), ISP / connectivity provider fees, or other indirect funding sources (subscriptions, memberships, sponsorships, foundations, philanthropy, advertising, legal notices, distribution and/or production subsidies).
So, 1: yes. 2: no. 3: in part.