As for 1): isn't it "speaking truth to power," or as Chomsky has often argued, speaking the truth to those who can then do something about, or to, power?
As for 2) Uh. . . . without tax support? Got me.
As for 3) Everything and nothing, I would guess. It would depend on the individual(s) involved. An analogy would perhaps be amateur or semi-pro scholarship and professional academic scholarship.
Whatever the form, wouldn't the big problem be, well, compelling the necessary readership to read whatever replaces the newspapers? At one time there was something of a social stigma imposed upon one who did not subscribe, or at least read, the local rag. The cost was low enough that if a household did not "get the paper" it was' a tacit admission of serious financial difficulties, or oddball eccentricity, at least in the 'burb I in which I grew up in So Cal.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Jordan Hayes wrote:
>
> Local investigative journalism is absolutely essential to fighting
>> official corruption; that's as true in Tulsa as it is in Seattle.
>>
>
> Yeah, I thought about that after I posted. That is damned essential. And
> takes money and professionalism.
>
> Just for argument's sake: because this is so essential, is it possible to
> imagine this running on a tax-funded basis?
>
> Could we perhaps get around the control issue by electing an ombudsman? As
> one now elects in some cities a Public Advocate -- who runs, in some ways, a
> low-grade (but upgradable?) investigative journalism outlet that starts with
> a city-wide complaint system.
>
> Does seem like total nonsense?
>