Instead, we should implement new mechanisms for funding public goods like news such as quadratic finance. Quadratic finance is a non-market mechanism that enables a decentralized ecosystem of self-organizing public goods producers such as newsrooms. It overcomes the collective action problem of donation-based models by considering the number of people contributing as well as the amount of money contributed. Newsrooms with a large base of popular support receive greater funding
Newsrooms with a large base of popular support receive greater funding
“Popular” newsroom receiving greater funding is the problem with the current approaches.
Currently popular newsrooms have more viewers, which means more eyeballs on advertising, which generates more ad revenue. It creates an incentive to use fear mongering (because fear keeps people watching the news) and biased news (because most people want to hear news that reinforces their beliefs and they turn off news that challenges them.)
I don’t know what the solution is, but somehow we need to get to a solution where funding favours unbiased factual reporting regardless of popularity.
Popular, here, isn’t meant in an ad and attention grabbing sense.
With quadratic funding, people make voluntary contributions to newsrooms they like. The government matches these contributions using a neutral formula that results in newsrooms that receive small contributions from many people receiving a greater level of funding than those supported by small number of wealthy people. The fear mongering and bias can be avoided by allowing citizens to make negative contributions
Instead, we should implement new mechanisms for funding public goods like news such as quadratic finance. Quadratic finance is a non-market mechanism that enables a decentralized ecosystem of self-organizing public goods producers such as newsrooms. It overcomes the collective action problem of donation-based models by considering the number of people contributing as well as the amount of money contributed. Newsrooms with a large base of popular support receive greater funding
@canada
“Popular” newsroom receiving greater funding is the problem with the current approaches.
Currently popular newsrooms have more viewers, which means more eyeballs on advertising, which generates more ad revenue. It creates an incentive to use fear mongering (because fear keeps people watching the news) and biased news (because most people want to hear news that reinforces their beliefs and they turn off news that challenges them.)
I don’t know what the solution is, but somehow we need to get to a solution where funding favours unbiased factual reporting regardless of popularity.
Popular, here, isn’t meant in an ad and attention grabbing sense.
With quadratic funding, people make voluntary contributions to newsrooms they like. The government matches these contributions using a neutral formula that results in newsrooms that receive small contributions from many people receiving a greater level of funding than those supported by small number of wealthy people. The fear mongering and bias can be avoided by allowing citizens to make negative contributions
@canada