• Fiona@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 months ago

    The honest answer are general fees like they are used for public broadcasters. It’s not a perfect system either and it requires significant effort to keep things neutral, but overall it seems to have the best results if you compare the quality of the outcome.

    • LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Who gets to collect revenue from the fees though? Where do you draw the line, are you cutting off independent journalism?

      • Fiona@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’m not saying it’s an easy line to draw because you obviously don’t want to create incentives for bad journalism, but don’t want to make it too high of a bar to get into in the first place. I think you’d need to take things like the number of readers, the factuality of headings and content, the originality and the investigative value into account and be able to at least temporarily cut of bad outlets that spread fake/hate/… while at the same time ensuring that inconvenient truths make it out.

        It’s not an easy task, but I feel there is more room to get somewhere useful than with the current model of billionaire-owned media that outdo each other with rage-bait and inaccurate/misleading/falsly balanced/biased reporting…