The only reason that people are willing to do it for free is because they believe the "exposure" myth and think that it will lead to paid work.
What they don't realize is that in aggregate, their willingness to do it for free jeopardizes their ability to do it for money in the future. It's a nice little game theory problem. A single defector from the "only work for money" strategy probably benefits; the rookie journalist gets his foot in the door, gets the "exposure" and the industry connections, and so yields an advantage over his peers.
But once all his peers defect from the paid strategy, the whole thing comes crashing down. None of them achieve any advantage over any other. They just drive the median compensation down towards zero.
The claim that there's an abundance of high quality journalism is hogwash. There isn't. There's a glut of no-talent regurgitators. Most of them have poor knowledge of the subject matter, don't bother checking facts, don't do any original research, and generally offer little of value.
But in your game, not everyone wins when the equilibrium is held intact. It keeps journalism expensive which is bad for publishers and readers. All things considered the pros might outweigh the cons, but you're suggesting it's a lose-lose game which it is most certainly not. Instead it's classic supply/demand: the only reason the equilibrium crumbles so easily is because there's too much people wanting to be journalists in the first place.
What they don't realize is that in aggregate, their willingness to do it for free jeopardizes their ability to do it for money in the future. It's a nice little game theory problem. A single defector from the "only work for money" strategy probably benefits; the rookie journalist gets his foot in the door, gets the "exposure" and the industry connections, and so yields an advantage over his peers.
But once all his peers defect from the paid strategy, the whole thing comes crashing down. None of them achieve any advantage over any other. They just drive the median compensation down towards zero.
The claim that there's an abundance of high quality journalism is hogwash. There isn't. There's a glut of no-talent regurgitators. Most of them have poor knowledge of the subject matter, don't bother checking facts, don't do any original research, and generally offer little of value.