Breaking Media Filter Bubbles: New Business Models

The availability of information within the United States is becoming increasingly divided based on societal status. This extends beyond the general perception that individuals are struggling to find common ground on important topics—evidence indicates a growing separation into distinct ideological groups. Although often considered a matter of political alignment, the core issue is more concerning: it’s a disparity between those with financial means and those without.

Currently, Americans are encountering vastly different sets of facts depending on where they get their news. Information is frequently presented in a way that supports pre-existing viewpoints rather than objectively reflecting reality. This phenomenon affects media across the political landscape, impacting outlets like The New York Times just as much as Fox News. A significant factor driving this division in information access is the increasing prevalence of comprehensive paywalls, which restrict information based on economic circumstances.

As a magazine editor aptly stated, “Accurate reporting requires payment, while misinformation is readily available at no cost.”

Now is the time to carefully consider how we can develop sustainable business practices that bridge these information gaps, ensuring everyone has consistent access to diverse perspectives and a complete understanding of events.

Ringing the division bell

The increasing separation of viewpoints in media isn't a recent development. Research over the past ten years demonstrates that individuals have been segregating themselves into distinct news consumption groups. Social media networks – increasingly taking the place of traditional publishers as the primary source of news – amplify this trend, utilizing engagement metrics to connect content with specific audiences. However, much of this research concentrates on the political spectrum; less attention is given to the core disparity in perspectives stemming from varying capacities and propensities to financially support news gathering.

The shift by leading news organizations toward comprehensive paywalls is a relatively new strategy, responding to the limitations of the traditional advertising-based content model. These paywalls have gained traction, encouraging readers to subscribe as an alternative to relying on advertising revenue. Consequently, they have likely contributed to stabilizing – and potentially reversing – the revenue decrease experienced by the news industry due to the internet.

The extent of this revenue decline is significant, as illustrated by this OECD visualization detailing the decrease in circulation, number of publications, and overall revenues over time.

As Rupert Murdoch observed, “…sometimes resources diminish.” Between 2007 and 2009, the United States witnessed a 30% reduction in newspaper publishing. Workforce reductions have become commonplace for smaller and medium-sized news outlets, leading them to merge with larger organizations to reduce costs and broaden their reach to attract advertising investment.

The situation is evident: continued access to news requires a collaborative effort between the public and media organizations to establish a sustainable financial framework. As news curation service favor.it points out, “There is now a direct financial implication for users seeking out accurate, insightful, and high-quality news. [ … ] This issue is compounded by the rise of competing, less trustworthy news sources and aggregators capable of rapidly disseminating articles on platforms like [F]acebook, regardless of their factual accuracy or thoroughness of research.” Supporting data from an MIT study of 126,000 articles reveals that false stories spread, on average, six times faster than accurate reporting.

The new iron curtains

The average cost of accessing news through paywalls is approximately $15.75 per month across six European nations and the United States. Considering that a significant portion of the American workforce is employed in lower-paying positions and many individuals are facing financial instability, a $15 monthly news subscription – let alone multiple subscriptions – is often unaffordable. Consequently, readily available, cost-free news sources and sensationalized headlines on social media platforms serve as the primary information channels for many who lack the financial means or the time to verify information independently.

A frequently proposed solution involves news organizations collaborating to offer a bundled subscription service, often likened to a “Netflix for news.” Platforms such as Apple News have indeed attracted a substantial user base, exceeding 100 million. However, this approach doesn’t address a core issue: in an era of ubiquitous, free online content, a considerable number of people are unwilling to pay for news, even when offered as part of a package.

Don Richard, a senior Product Manager at Shopify, observes, “I don’t believe the broad appeal of a subscription bundle focused on written content is as strong as many in the technology sector anticipate. Most individuals perceive text-based content as less valuable than television or music – with ‘value’ being determined by personal needs and willingness to pay. When faced with essential expenses, justifying the cost of a text-content bundle becomes challenging. Because such a bundle doesn’t currently exist, the funds for it would need to be reallocated from elsewhere in a household’s monthly budget, meaning it would compete with other necessary spending. Essential costs like food, housing, and utilities are unlikely to be reduced to accommodate a text-content bundle.”

This situation results in a clear distinction between two types of media: freely accessible media, often produced by independent journalists, freelancers, and understaffed content teams, and paywalled media, which typically benefits from more comprehensive fact-checking and editorial oversight. As Robinson points out, “Obtaining reliable and important information requires both time and financial resources, while misinformation is often readily available at no cost.”

Returning to the growing division within the American population, this disparity in media access has significant implications. While disagreements over beliefs and ideas are natural, constructive dialogue depends on a shared understanding of the facts. When the factual basis is contested, productive debate becomes impossible.

This dynamic fuels accusations of “fake news”: the separation of information into free versus paywalled categories leads to increasingly fractured conversations. As favor.it explains, we are heading towards a scenario where access to fundamental, accurate information about current events will be unevenly distributed, creating a divide between those who have it and those who do not.

Where do we go from here?

The current internet media model, relying heavily on paywalls, clearly requires re-evaluation given its existing limitations. However, what viable alternatives exist? While targeted advertising has demonstrated drawbacks and often generates negative reactions from readers.

Although not an exhaustive list, the following are several potential approaches:

Providing core facts for free, with premium detailed content. Essential information from news reports could be made universally accessible, with more comprehensive and in-depth coverage offered as a paid upgrade. TechCrunch exemplifies this approach effectively: basic news coverage remains freely available on the website, while subscribers gain access to insightful analysis, thorough investigations, and expanded opinion pieces.

The New Paper represents another recent service experimenting with concise news summaries to address information overload and newsletter fatigue (though it still intends to implement a $5 monthly fee). This trend is being driven by the growth of platforms like Substack, which empower independent journalists to build sustainable businesses through dedicated followings and focused reporting.

Might news organizations adopt a system similar to Scandinavian ticketing, where pricing is determined by income? A tiered subscription model based on salary could enable more affluent readers to support access for those with fewer financial resources.

Furthermore, when individuals pay for news, they aren’t simply compensating for stories; they are investing in the expertise of editors, fact-checkers, and investigative journalists who work to establish the truth. This level of verification is something that Substack may struggle to consistently deliver.

Establishing a publicly accessible, collaboratively developed rating system for fact-based news sources and prioritizing this rating within algorithms. The way we discover information has evolved; aggregators now function as primary gateways to news. This has generated a substantial benefit for users—the ability to find information based on the story itself, independent of the source. However, it has also fostered an advertising-driven system that prioritizes unique views, often fueled by sensationalism and confirmation bias. Search engines, social media platforms, and aggregators should collaborate to create a public, transparent mechanism for evaluating information quality in news and integrate this into their algorithms to direct more traffic to reliable sources. An independent assessment of factual accuracy, incorporated into search and social rankings, could significantly reduce the spread of misinformation, though it must acknowledge the potential for truths to evolve over time.

Government-led initiatives. The government must once again play a role in safeguarding the integrity of journalism.

One measure would be to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine at the FCC, which mandated that broadcasters present multiple perspectives on controversial issues.

Another would be to increase funding for public news organizations across the political spectrum—liberal, conservative, and others—and subject them to regular information quality assessments. History demonstrates that when public services are allowed to be bypassed through private options—such as healthcare and education—public alternatives become underfunded; news is facing a similar situation.

The library model offers a compelling example: well-funded and maintained public libraries continue to provide a valuable, information-rich resource to those who utilize them. Expanding digital library resources and allocating funds to ensure information is not only accessible but also presented at the appropriate context could help combat the spread of misinformation.

A final possibility would be to implement information quality scores, analogous to public health and safety ratings. This could take the form of a simple A-F grade for news outlets or a nutritional label-style breakdown of content.

Micropayments and individual story purchases. Throughout the challenges faced by news media in the internet age, technologists have consistently proposed micropayments as a solution. The desire to access a single news story is often spontaneous, while media subscriptions are ongoing commitments. Many individuals, including myself, are hesitant to commit to a monthly or annual news subscription solely to access a single article. Publishers should consider offering individual stories for purchase through micropayments, such as $0.10 per story (representing a multiple of the payout some publishers provide to their writers). Digital wallets integrated into browsers (like Metamask and Brave Browser) can facilitate these micropayments seamlessly, either with user confirmation for each story or operating in the background to allow for uninterrupted browsing. As futurist Jaron Lanier observed a decade ago, “Digital technology … disrupted the so-called ‘creative class’—journalists, musicians, photographers”—when access to information became free; micropayments (and royalties) could help revitalize these professions. However, there is a disparity between the cost of publishing a story (for example, $100) and the willingness of people to pay for it (for example, $0.10); unlike songs and movies, news stories are typically consumed only once.

Exploring alternative revenue sources. Media organizations should re-examine opportunities to generate revenue through events, classified advertisements, sponsored content, in-depth research, and other information-related services, potentially offering “just the facts” as a loss leader. The New York Times, for instance, successfully launched The Daily podcast and established its cooking and crossword products as independent offerings. Publications should also reinvest in hyperlocal journalism, supported by local sponsorships.

As paywalls become increasingly prevalent, a divide will emerge between those who have access to news and those who do not. There is no single, simple solution to this problem. The public benefits from open access to news; accurate reporting generates positive societal effects. However, we have yet to establish a sustainable commercial model to support these organizations. The answer likely lies in a combination of the approaches outlined above, along with other revenue streams (including, yes, advertising). But it is crucial to the strength of our society that we continue to seek that answer.

We must consider the value created by quality news coverage, thorough investigative research, and honest reporting. Who benefits from this value? At this critical moment, as vulnerabilities in our democracy become apparent, it is clear that we all benefit as a society. Therefore, let us collaborate to support it, for the betterment of society.

Thank you to Danny Crichton, Danny Zuckerman, Jason Wardy and Orion de Nevers for reviewing this piece.