Publishers don't just need to perfect a micro-payment solution for content, they need to change the way they create that content to make their entire business cheaper to operate.
I want the best journalism possible, and I'm willing to pay for it not just so I can read it, but so others can be informed and our democracy will actually have a chance of working. Producing journalism as cheaply as possible won't result in the kind of democracy I want to live in. The sacrifices that have been made have already led in that direction.
That has been the practice of media companies for more than two decades. Mergers and aquisitions have reduced the number of print media owners to a tiny handful. The problem is more that those businesses are used to 20% profit margins, and with over-inflated prices paid during the acquisitions, there is far less incentive to pay market rates for journalists, or even to keep them employed.
While you might be willing to pay for the best journalism, the people hiring the journalists sure aren't. Furthermore, the line between editorial content and actual reporting has become so blurry that the smart thing to do is presume that the entire newspaper is editorial.
I agree. That's why I think the best option is for people like me to hire our own journalists by funding non-profit journalism. Then again, I'm biased.
The problem with newspapers is bureaucratic waste . . . and the inability to adapt quickly. I think journalists should be paid more, but that the bureaucratic structure that surrounds them should be eliminated.