I have to disagree. People who are passionate about a subject will report on it whether they're paid to or not. I would argue that being motivated by profit only makes you more susceptible to bias.
> People who are passionate about a subject will report on it whether they're paid to or not
The Theranos story is an example of why we need institutions like the Wall Street Journal. You had a passionate reporter. But there was so much more needed to bring the story to light.
"When the Journal confronted [Theranos] with its findings based on the reporting thus far and sought its input, Theranos waged an aggressive campaign to discredit Mr. Carreyrou and his sources. Sunny Balwani, Theranos’s president, flew to the Phoenix area, where Theranos was offering its blood tests in Walgreens stores. There, some doctors who had talked with Carreyrou said Mr. Balwani pressured them to recant their statements. The famed litigator David Boies came twice to the Journal’s newsroom in midtown Manhattan to discuss the issues and tried to get the story killed.
The Journal’s top editors and lawyers, who had closely monitored Mr. Carreyrou’s reporting from an early stage, unflinchingly stood by him" [1].
Switching to a model where news is done philanthropically means turning off public oversight on anyone who can file a federal lawsuit.
I don't see why reporting the news is different from other jobs that people have a passion for and provide value to society. Should scientists not be paid because there are people who are curious about that natural world who would do it for free?
> Should scientists not be paid because there are people who are curious about that natural world who would do it for free?
I guess I'll come to the rescue of that strawman you're torching... Scientists are free to work for money or passion, as people are free to fund research or not. Whatever the balance of pay vs passion, science will continue to happen.
I might have been too hasty. The first couple times I read it, I thought your original comment was saying that paying for news wasn't worth it because journalists who are willing to work for free are less biased. Rereading it, it sounds like your point was more along the lines of paying for news in of itself doesn't lead to less biased coverage.
I'm not convinced it's possible for anyone to be free of bias and I don't claim that unpaid reporters are unbiased reporters. The onus will always be on the reader to draw their own conclusions and verify the integrity of the news they consume.
All right, why is someone who cares passionately about something less susceptible to bias than someone who's just reporting for a living? I would be inclined to believe the opposite.
There is a difference between news and opinion. Something like Stratechery is pure opinion; but it's opinion that I value because I feel it provides a lot of good insights.
It's fine to crowdsource opinion. It's not ok to crowdsource news -- trust is a fundamental part of the equation.
People who are passionate about a subject are usually passionate about a certain view on a subject. Do you really think political activists make good reporters?
