A perspective on writers, readers, money, and the changing marketplace of ideas.
I am 78 years old. During my lifetime, I have witnessed an extraordinary number of changes in the way we live, communicate, do business, and relate to one another. Some have been wonderful. Others have given me reason to pause and ask a few questions.
One change that has increasingly caught my attention is the commercialization of information and opinion. It seems that everywhere I turn, someone is selling a subscription. Reading someone's thoughts, watching their commentary, or listening to their opinions increasingly means paying a weekly or monthly fee to get past a paywall.
Apparently, having something to say is no longer enough. We must now purchase access to hear it.
I want to be clear: I have no objection to people earning a living by sharing their knowledge, experience, or opinions. Good writing takes time. Journalism costs money. Producing thoughtful programming requires effort and resources. There is nothing inherently wrong with charging for quality work.
But I do question what we are creating when access to information becomes increasingly dependent upon a person's ability and willingness to pay.
I Remember a Different Arrangement
Writers submitted their work to publishers. If an article was accepted, the writer was often paid by the publisher, which earned revenue through advertising, sponsorships, and the sale of newspapers and magazines. Readers could purchase a newspaper or magazine, read the article, agree or disagree, and respond. Writers had an opportunity to hear from their readers, and readers had an opportunity to participate in the conversation.
It wasn't a perfect system, but there was a relationship between the writer, the publisher, and the reader.
I also remember a time when the responsibility of a communicator was to present information, explain the facts, identify the sources, and distinguish those facts from personal opinion. Readers were then free to consider the information and reach their own conclusions.
That distinction matters.
I don't need someone to tell me what to think. I want information that allows me to think for myself. I want to hear different perspectives, understand the arguments, consider the consequences, and make my own decisions.
My father, the smartest man I ever knew, gave me advice that has stayed with me throughout my life:
“You will learn much more from those you disagree with than those you agree with. Treat those you disagree with as a valuable resource in your life.”
I have tried to live by that advice.
And that brings me to another concern. When a writer or commentator depends financially upon a paying audience, what incentive exists to challenge that audience's thinking? Is there a risk that the writer will increasingly tell subscribers what they already believe, rather than introduce ideas that might make them reconsider their positions?
I don't suggest that every subscription-based writer does this. But the financial incentive deserves consideration. If people pay to hear opinions that reinforce their own, we risk creating smaller and smaller circles of agreement, with fewer opportunities for meaningful discussion.
We don't need more people shouting past one another. We need more people willing to listen.
And It Isn't Just Writers
Television and other media have joined the subscription marketplace in a big way. Programming that once came through a traditional television package may now be divided among multiple services.
And sometimes the cost comes in layers.
Consider this example: I want to watch Lawrence O'Donnell on MS NOW. Some viewers receive the network through their existing cable television package. Others, like me, have a cable package that does not include MS NOW. I still pay Comcast for television service, but I also subscribe directly to MS NOW and access its programming through the network's app on my iPhone.
In my case, I'm paying for television service and then paying separately for access to the network I want to watch. That's another recurring expense simply to obtain the programming I want.
How many layers of charges are we expected to accept simply to watch what we want?
And this isn't limited to television. The same general pattern is appearing across news outlets, publications, podcasts, streaming services, and individual commentators.
How many subscriptions does one person need to maintain simply to stay informed?
A monthly charge may appear modest when considered by itself. But add up the television services, news outlets, commentators, publications, podcasts, and other sources, and the total can become substantial. Someone who genuinely wants to keep up with what is happening in the world can find themselves paying a small fortune every month.
And there is another side to this arrangement that deserves attention: the consumer's ability to get out.
Signing up for a subscription is often remarkably easy. A few clicks, a payment method, and you're in. But what happens when the service no longer provides the value you expect? What happens when you discover you've been paying for something you aren't using or receiving? How straightforward is it to cancel? How easy is it to obtain a refund?
The terms, cancellation procedures, and refund policies should be just as clear and accessible as the sign-up process. Consumers deserve to know what they agree to before they commit, and they deserve a fair and uncomplicated way to end that relationship.
If we make it easy to take someone's money, we should make it equally easy for them to stop paying.
But My Greatest Concern Goes Beyond the Cost to Those of Us Who Can Afford These Services
What about the people who cannot?
There are people in this country who are already struggling to meet basic living expenses. For them, another monthly subscription isn't a minor inconvenience. It may simply be out of reach.
Yet these are people who need access to information just as much as anyone else. They need to understand what is happening in their communities, their country, and the world around them. They need the opportunity to hear different viewpoints and make informed decisions about their lives.
I sometimes think of those on the lower end of the economic scale as an iceberg. What we see above the water is only a small portion of what exists below the surface. The largest part is unseen, and too often overlooked.
I don't believe that a person's financial circumstances should determine whether they have access to the information and ideas necessary to participate in society. That simply isn't right in my world.
So, Is There Another Way?
I believe there is.
What if more writers, commentators, and subject-matter experts made their work freely available and invited readers and viewers to support them voluntarily? Those who found genuine value in the work could contribute. Those who couldn't afford to contribute could still participate. And those who didn't find value could simply move on.
Public broadcasting, including PBS, offers one familiar example of a model that invites voluntary public support, although it also relies on other sources of funding.
Would this approach work for everyone? Probably not. Would every contributor earn the income they hoped for? Certainly not. But it would put the decision where I believe it belongs: with the people consuming the work.
Leave the buying decision to the BUYERS! The SELLERS should not be trying to dictate how the BUYERS buy!
I recognize that the old ways weren't perfect, and I don't expect us to turn back the clock. Technology has opened doors that previous generations could hardly imagine. There is enormous value in the ability to communicate with people around the world and access information almost instantly.
But progress should not mean that every exchange of information must become another recurring charge on someone's credit card.
I am not suggesting that everything should be free. I am suggesting that we give serious thought to the consequences of making so much of our information environment dependent upon subscriptions and the ability to pay.
We need informed citizens. We need independent thinkers. We need writers and commentators who are willing to challenge us, not merely reassure us. And we need to preserve the opportunity for people from all economic circumstances to participate in the exchange of ideas.
At the end of the day, I don't need everyone to agree with me. In fact, I would be disappointed if they did. I welcome a thoughtful disagreement far more than an automatic agreement.
My father taught me that lesson a long time ago, and I believe it is as important today as it ever was.
I remember when people shared their thoughts for free. Perhaps we should give some serious consideration to what we have gained—and what we may be losing—as that tradition disappears.
As for me, I intend to keep sharing my thoughts. There will be no charge to read them. No subscription required.
If you agree, disagree, or have a different perspective, I welcome hearing from you.
After all, the conversation is the point.