On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
> On the upside, if you only want it to be online, that's relatively cheap.
If you want to pay decent writers decently -- and you're going to have to to attract them -- and train and pay skilled editors to edit them, that's going to cost just as much running a magazine like the Nation and probably more. What you save on paper you'll be spending on quality. The economist is better than most magazines because they spend a lot more on those things. And a well made, well-maintained website costs money too. As would a skilled publicist, since the whole point of such a venture would be to make ideas known outside the circle that already discusses it.
In short, quality and influence costs money.
Michael