,
10 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
"part of the issue was the investors who backed online media startups thought they were investing in fast-growing tech businesses, rather than something resembling a traditional news outlet." theguardian.com/media/2019/jan…
A lot of people are saying Media Is Doomed In This Epoch when a large-to-majority part of the problem is specific business decisions made by owners and investors and by ruthless platforms seeking total dominance.
It's one thing to run a publication so that it can pay its bills and workers and sustain its existence; it is a Very Different Thing to run a publication in order to make profits for investors.
Investors will always get first dibs on revenue, and workers will be fired where necessary! 
Sigh.
Look at bookstores: Borders died, and B&N are dying, because they have owners/investors to enrich. Even in the face of amazon, lots of local bookstores are doing pretty ok, because they just want to make enough money to keep the lights on. No investors. qz.com/1135474/how-in…
Why would media be a "Come Invest Millions In Us" business? Why wouldn't it be a "Make Enough To Keep Lights On" industry?
If you want a sustainable model for media, "reinvest revenue in the business itself instead of draining off profits to enrich investors" is just sitting there, we could try that. Otherwise, I'm afraid we might have to abolish capitalism.
Also, subscribe to @popula, yeah, that's right, I said it: popula.com/thank-you/
We don't have investors, we just pay people to write and draw things while we have the money to do so.
