The Atlantic interviews one Steve Brill.
One main argument seems to be: journalism needs to have a support structure, and as in the past, it ought to be profit-making and ad-revenue generating. This is simple economics.
Perhaps the argument even assumes something more basic: there has been and will be a pool of people pursuing their own expression of their ideas through writing (and their own self-interest). Some of these people also pursue the interests of individuals and groups individuals they belong to, as well as individuals and groups they don’t belong to. More broadly, these people can also pursue the interests of the common good.
At times, journalism can be quite inspriring, and even vital to our democracy.
Yet, do we need a professional class of information gatherers? …of journalists? Does developing technology actually provide the means to make them obsolete?
Also, when does writing become a fine art (useless but for the higher reasons) anyways? When do the journalist’s problems become the artist’s problems (who must cozy up to patrons)?
Personally, I’m not sure it follows that the current media moguls would need to be the future gatekeepers as the technology develops ahead.
Links On This Site: Malcolm Gladwell argues here that apart from the information/journalism divide, the technology still ultimately costs something as well…”Free” is a utopian vision, and I suspect Gladwell knows this pretty well: From The New Yorker: Malcolm Gladwell’s “Priced To Sell”