Or better said: “Being less dependent on advertising”
In 2025, I seem to be talking about a new role for the media.
Last April, I wrote an article about how the new media should be constructed. To summarize, I stated the media’s main job is to entice discussion about the issues that face us. This is much different than taking one side over the other (while pretending to be neutral) or report on the drama of who is in charge. When productive discussion is encouraged, the public and its political leaders will reach better decisions — and the losing side is more accepting of following the path of the winning side.
Last May, I wrote an article about a news show from Canada that takes a new “productive discussion” approach:
Then in October, I wrote an article about my frustration with media on the internet. In essence, I don’t like paywalls, subscriptions, and garrish advertising. Many other news consumers feel the same.
And now I have another media-related article. This article will talk about how the new media can be financed.
I read about this idea 10 to 20 years ago. It made sense back then. It makes more sense today. Unfortunately, I do not have the source for this idea. But I will bring the idea to your attention and offer some enhancements. My apologies to the original thinker.
Media & Our Tax Return
We, the people, have an expectation that we get our media for free. If not free, then for very little. I’m not sure why, but this condition seems almost a part of human nature. I currently subscribe/donate to three media outlets, and it was psychologically hard for me to set up those payments. I am not a wealthy person and cannot afford to be too generous.
It’s obvious that much of the media still depends on advertising to bring the news to us. And it’s not quite as obvious that this advertising has a subtle effect on what and how the news is delivered. If the content did not somehow entice the advertisers to advertise, the media outlet does not exist. But the advertisers are more interested in sales from advertising, not responsible journalism. So the content needs to be “adjusted” to enhance advertiser’s profits.
Subscriptions favor the wealthy. And the wealthy can — directly or indirectly — subsidize the media outlets they prefer, outcompeting more responsible media outlets. The current free-market model of media financing is not working for society.
Here is the new way that severs much of that free-market relationship.
When we file our taxes, we place a checkmark on media outlets we would like to fund. Then the government sends a small stipend to those outlets.
More details
The citizens make the choice of where the money goes. It could be a national newspaper or a local newspaper. Or a national broadcaster or a local broadcaster. An internet website. Whatever generates news.
When the citizen clicks his or her media boxes on the tax return, the government sends, let’s say $500, split between the chosen outlets.
The citizen does not pay that $500 him- or herself, thus satisfying the need not to pay for news. The citizen does not get that $500, so this stipend is not another form of social assistance. The money flows from the government to the media outlet.
With this revenue, the media outlet selected will now be less reliant on advertisers to get the news to us. Independent outlets will be more viable and more able to compete against the corporate media. Citizens will be less influenced by the corporate media owners and their nefarious, subtle agendas.
All citizens have an equal say in their media choice. I can allocate $500 to my favorite media outlets. A millionaire gets the same $500 allocation. Sounds fair to me. I have as much influence as a wealthy person.
We, the people, decide on which media outlets get this government allocation. Not the government.
Responsible Journalism
Not every media outlet who wants to be on this government allocation should get this privilege. They should have a reputation for providing fair coverage of the news.
So who decides which media outlets are worthy? Unfortunately, professional journalism is subjective. But other professions, like law and engineering, are also subjective. Yet they have been guided by internal governance structures. The public is better served by these structures, instead of non-experts setting the rules. For journalism, I say the ideals of responsible journalism come from the many schools of journalism. It is these schools that will formally set up the association to manage this new way of funding the media.
Here is my suggested model of governance, based on Tiered Democratic Governance. There should be two tiers. Each school of journalism gets to send one representative to the first tier. Each school will decide on the mechanism to select their representative.
Members of the first tier can sit on the panels that make the media-by-media decisions. With these panels, members will be getting to know each other, assessing their commitment and skills to fair journalism. This knowledge will be useful when selecting members for the second tier.
Once a year, members of the first tier will vote for the first-tier members that constitute the second tier. The second tier will be much smaller than the first tier. Maybe 10% of the first-tier members will attain a second-tier position.
The second tier has several functions. First, it will set the vision and policy of the association. Second, it will guide the administration of the association, including which first-tier representatives sit on the various panels. Third, it will send at least one second-tier member to each of the investigation panels. In other words, the first-tier members have most of the influence in these panels, but the second-tier is watching closely.
Probation Period
Media outlets that want the government allocation have to apply to the association. I think it’s safe to assume that most of the applicants will understand and abide by the rules. So the association can assume that full acceptance is likely in most cases, and the media outlet can let its readers/viewers know about their vote for the government allocation.
However, a probationary audit should still be conducted. The second tier can set up a panel of three first-tier members, who will inspect the media work of the applicant. The panel can come to one of three recommendations: (1) accept the applicant is suitable for the government allocation, (2) reject the application for reasons stated in the association’s rules, or (3) ask for further assistance, probably expanding the size of the panel.
The Investigation
After the probationary period, the media outlet need not be inspected until public complaints become serious. The second tier will set up the mechanism to receive complaints and decide which outlets need to be investigated.
Let me just emphasize again the good journalism is a subjective term. In the rush to decide which stories get the headlines and choose the words that go with those headlines, there will be biases. Investigations should not be done with the intention of punishing all the infractions but more in line of removing the worst offenders. I believe this threat of losing the government allocation will cause many media outlets into behaving more professionally. Not perfect, but more professionally
If an investigation is warranted, the second tier will set up a panel to conduct that investigation. Maybe five or six first-tier members should sit in this panel. At least one member of the second tier should be there. That member gets a vote in the final decision, but not a veto.
The due process might look like this. All panel members will read/watch the works produced by the media outlet. Each panel member will give his/her opinion. The media outlet should be allowed to defend itself. Next should be a round of general discussion. And finally a vote. This process might take several meetings. With online meeting technology, it should be easy to convene these meetings.
I recommend a 60% majority vote to issue a warning or a suspension of the media outlet from this professional association. When this supermajority is attained, the media outlet will be certain that it has not received approval from its peers. If the supermajority is not quite attained, that should also be a signal that the media outlet still needs to voluntarily reform its journalistic practices. Another audit is likely.
If a media outlet is warned, there should be some guidance to improve. Another investigation should be conducted six months after the warning.
If a media outlet is suspended, it should not be prohibited from reporting their style of news. It only means it no longer gets the government money. It can use subscriptions and advertising to fund its operations.
Examples
I suspect Fox News would not get this stipend. They clearly have a political agenda, not even pretending that they are fair journalists.
I often listen to my local golden oldies FM station “Boom 101.1.” This station is mostly canned programming, but it has about one to two minutes of local news inserted into slots of the morning weekday hours. But this news is shallow, not really bringing its listeners to a better understanding of how my community works. I hope this station is not eligible for the stipend. But if the stipend is possible, it might look at hiring a real reporter/producer to find more local news.
I like CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) Radio and CBC TV. These public broadcasters have enough news programing for its listeners. I would allocate some of my stipend to these two public organizations. I would agree that CBC’s private competitors — CTV and Global — should also be eligible for this stipend.
And I would allocate some stipend toward The Brooks Bulletin, a privately-held local newspaper in my town. The Bulletin is the best place to get local news.
My Calgary-based newspapers — the Calgary Herald and Calgary Sun — should also be eligible to get this stipend. While each outlet has a slight political bias to their news reporting, they still provide enough facts for their readers to reach their own conclusions.
Again, these are my opinions. I will leave the final decisions to the first-tier panels — and to the second tier to set the policy of how media outlets are investigated.
Conclusion
This media-financing idea has several integrated components to make it work.
The government accepts that an independent media is necessary for society to reach consultative decisions.
The government should provide much of the financing for the new media model.
A professional journalism association decides which media outlets are eligible for the government funding. So the government is not selecting the media outlets. So the media has its independence from the government.
And the media outlets ultimately gets their responsibility from the citizens, not from the government or the professionals.
This is an interesting check-and-balance relationship between the government, the media, and the people. It will result in a better media — at the macro and micro levels of society.
And some Dave Volek promoting
I’ve been on Medium for 6.5 years, mostly to promote my alternative democracy. With this article, I got a little chance to introduce this democracy again. However, I have a couple of other inventions that are also related to this article.
The Spolu
The spolu is an advanced cooperative. A spolu shares its profits between investors, employees, customers, suppliers, and philanthropy. Spolus will have a reputation of being socially conscious organizations. Many consumers will prefer to shop at a spolu than at a corporation.
New media outlets could be constructed as spolus.
DVO Advertising
DVO Advertising is an online software for website publishers and advertisers to connect. The advertiser applies to the publisher to advertise on the publisher’s website. The publisher decides if the ad is appropriate for the website. If so, the two parties then negotiate a fee, frequency, and run time through an online interface.
DVO Advertising sells the software for the publisher to effect this kind of advertiser/publisher relationship. The publisher takes more control of how advertising shapes the website. So less website space is allocated to ads. The fewer ads work with the website content and format. And I believe the publisher is likely to earn more revenue with DVO Advertising than with current ad brokers.
And the advertisers should know the target audience of the publisher by the publisher’s content and demographic stats. The advertiser can make better marketing decisions.
DVO Advertising provides a more useful match between the publisher and the advertiser. Yes, news websites will still get some revenue from this advertising, but government allocation will dominate the funding. So the advertiser will have to take his website as it is — and is not in a position to influence a different direction.
Published on Medium 2025
Why is Science Fiction Holding Us Back?
