Just 10 years ago, nearly every household in my church and most people I knew subscribed to a Newspaper. Today almost no one I know or come in contact with buys newspapers. That isn’t to say they don’t read news, but they don’t buy the dead tree form of news anymore. They get it electronically on their phone or on their laptops.
This is a trend that is only going to get worse. So Newspapers that rely on people buying their paper copy of the news are going to be in serious trouble if they aren’t already.

That being said, I completely agree that getting people to pay for online content is futile at best.

2. I agree that responsible journalism is a mixture of both. Maybe I’m just a little more cynical and jaded than Ben is. I think that the responsible unbiased journalism, that we all hold as an ideal, has never existed. At least not in this country. It may have existed with individual journalists throughout the years, but those were the exception rather than the rule. When it comes to the news organizations(TV, Newspaper, Radio, Magazine), there have always been only two agendas. 1. To make money by selling your product(whether by selling your readers/listeners to the advertisers, or selling access to your news medium). 2. To further a particular religious or political faction.

2) i agree. but i just think shifting to more of a salesman’s mentality would make it less so.

but anyway, what i was saying about “what we want to hear” vs “what we need to hear” was not so much about bias, and more about subject matter.

1.) Can’t this be the same?
–> aren’t there people who can decide this very well for themselves?

2.) (even if not…) wouldn’t responsible journalism be a mixture of both?
I’m sure there ARE editorial staffs who do combine this. And some do it well.