What would it look like if we did "pay" for it?
You've lured me back onto my soapbox.
For starters, it would greatly reduce errors and other fundamental problems that crop up when you gut a newsroom of all of it's talent and experience.
I guess in my mind's eye I see vibrant newsrooms full of talented and experienced journalists. People with the experience, knowhow and connections to get real answers. Dozens of reporters covering things like state legislatures that we’ve long since all but ignored. People keeping tabs on laws and leaders and helping readers understand their local and national implications, whether it’s in a little burg or a big city. All those eyes don’t just bring scrutiny – they bring different perspectives. Look closely at your local paper. Even if it’s in a big city, a ton of the content is from the wire or otherwise syndicated. Where once 100 people covered the statehouse, now 100 newsrooms just use a wire report from one reporter. Even if that reporter is brilliant at his or her job, they can only cover so much, and they can only approach things from their own perspective.
I think all of that would also reduce some of the pressure journalists feel to entertain. They are constantly reminded of ratings, readership and revenues as they watch colleagues get the ax, so in today's world there's always a little voice telling a journalist to go for the sexy story instead of toiling to uncover truth and fact. A great example of this is how much time TV news dedicates to meaningless stories if there's an exciting video attached to them. So we get 30 seconds of presidential debate "coverage" and a two minute interview with the parents of a kid who almost fell off a cliff (because there's a video of the kid almost falling).