What next for digital media, a.k.a. free online news?  

With the closure of BuzzFeed News and the ubiquitous Vice set to follow suit into bankruptcy, what do these developments bode for local news sites like Rappler? How and where will journalism thrive, if the much-touted business model of free online news is tanking?

BuzzFeed no longer provides us titillating content. Vice has reportedly laid off 100 employees, and canceled its news program Vice News Tonight. Come to think of it, blogs where we get thoughtful tips and insightful observations have pretty much dried up. These days, it’s all about reels and vlogs, TikTok and YouTube.

I have to admit, my attention span has deteriorated. Before, I could devour books at a single sitting, nowadays I find myself putting down a book, even a fantastically delicious one, and picking it up only after a significant interval. Even on a plane when there’s no other alternative but to read a damn book, I’m just as likely to open my phone and scroll to do something else aside from read. Is this the insidious effect of social media?

Even Instagram has recognized the power of video, evolving from just a photo-sharing site to allowing vids and live streaming, just so it can retain the engagement that powers its advertising.

But I’m still a news junkie. Nothing like the rush of tracking current events. The shooting of former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe, saw me accessing multiple news sites just to learn as much as I could about his condition (I’m using this example, as the possible others are seriously trashy).

I’m sure I’m not unique in the quest for news. Many global citizens are addicted to facts. Gory details. Salacious tidbits. So, there has to be channels available to satisfy people’s curiosity for stories as they unfold. But if digital media is dying, what new form will the purveyors take?

Previously, the business model was to build intense traffic on the news site, generate multiple views, and then charge advertisers who want placements (as an aside, I hate local news sites that do this --their ads aren’t mere placements in strategic corners. Advertisers suddenly hijack one’s screen, and suddenly, you’re in another site begging for a download, or worse, 10 seconds of your time is claimed as you can’t exit the ad. That tactic pretty much kills any enthusiasm one may have for further browsing their page).

So do we just rely on traditional news sources that have provided online equivalents? Some of them charge for access. Paywalls are annoying, by the way news, especially gossip, should be free.

BuzzFeed News former editor-in-chief Ben Smith has, however, pronounced the death of free online news. “It’s the end of the marriage between social media and news”, he proclaimed to the New York Times. Was it just bitterness fueling this quip? Or will we really have to start paying for legitimate news?

We’ve seen the dangers of misinformed people. How ignorance can lead people to swallow concepts like vaccines are bad, or expensive mineral eggs inserted in one’s orifice are good for one’s health. Ignorance allowed thieving politicians to lead their naive constituents to believe their best interests are being attended to. This credulity has also led to strong-arm politicians being swept to power all over the world.

Will restricting information only to those who can afford to pay for it further the divide between the wealthy educated class, and the ignorant destitutes? Will we then see philanthropy take over, where good-hearted billionaires will pump cash to offer free alternatives to news sourcing?

If some billionaires can buy news outlets to shape the truth and lobby for their own interests, then other billionaires can set up their own legitimate alternates? It’s too early to tell. And to indulge in wishful thinking.