> It's a collective action problem. One person's subscription will not make the difference needed to improve journalism enough for them to get a direct benefit. Further, the main benefit would be that it exposes corruption, which doesn't generally impact individuals. Corruption's effects are spread amongst all the tax payers. Each individual is better off not subscribing and reaping the benefits of others' subscriptions, but everyone suffers if local journalism isn't funded.
The broader the benefit, the broader the appropriate tax base is. If this is for local journalism and is as important as you say (I have major doubts), then it should be funded by a broader tax base than streaming subscribers. I.e. The future of corruption free democracy shouldn’t be on the shoulders of streaming subscribers. If it is so important it should be funded by income taxes.
The broader the benefit, the broader the appropriate tax base is. If this is for local journalism and is as important as you say (I have major doubts), then it should be funded by a broader tax base than streaming subscribers. I.e. The future of corruption free democracy shouldn’t be on the shoulders of streaming subscribers. If it is so important it should be funded by income taxes.