My fundamental problem with the micro-transfer platform is that it would turn every publication into HuffPo in about a day. The organization needs money to support its endeavors. Is that West Africa bureau a net loss? Yeah probably. But when ebola hits the fan, the other alternative is to ignore it. If we're only rewarding for specific stories, we can 't be mad when that's all we get. I pay the Times their $12.95/mo or whatever, and I don't think I've clicked on the style section even once. But all the people that do are keeping the lights on for the useless little articles about rhino poaching and bird migration that make that publication worth reading.
But there are not enough people doing it. I don't read 1-2 outfits, it doesn't make sense that my subscription should be limited to 1-2 outfits, but because I can't pay in small increments, it is. NYT is asking me to pay upfront for a value to them alone that I don't get from them alone. Why should I pay NYT over three other outlets that I read an equal amount? I can't afford to pay all 4.But all the people that do are keeping the lights on for the useless little articles about rhino poaching and bird migration that make that publication worth reading.
Exactly this. Ryan Holiday makes point that newsboys screaming headlines on the town square led directly to the rise of yellow journalism, while the NYT's subscription model led directly to its demise. When your "journalism" is being driven entirely by CPM, you're doomed to hunt sensationalism. Oh, wait. Excuse me: "Does pay-per-click advertising directly lead to sensationalist journalism?"