It isn’t as “micro” as the ones above. But it is a way for news organizations to solicit donations to help pay for their freelancers.

w00t.

And keep up the good stuff Steve.

I have difficulty with two words: Free and voluntary.

Newspapers continue to be a “viable” media entity because print advertisers continue to believe the spiel of paper-backed power brokers, a rather disturbing reflection of an industry founded on the premise of public truths and private interests.

These carpetbaggers continue to grasp at straws, unwilling to change, unwilling to adapt, and unwilling to accept the many visions of a digital marketplace. They seem to find comfort and security in the company of fools and charlatans.

Meanwhile, FREE in the media has usually been bought and paid for by the consumer with the compliments of Widgets Inc., Preparation-H, and Benny the Barber. The editorial message is spiced and sliced and packaged with a need or a want or a desire to buy or sell in a never-ending game of publicity and promotion.

And, now, in this dawn of digital delivery the newspaper publisher would like the reader to pay for editorial content? Even 10 cents a yarn is exorbitant if the article or page has been pre-paid by an advertiser.

It’s getting a little ridiculous to see some newspapers charge for content … to read an obit!

Voluntary financial support?

Wikipedia, yes.

The Daily Rag, no.

If you have to ask why, you’re part of the problem, not the solution.

Mandatory fees?

Try it.

Please!

Prove me wrong.

It’s enabling each of the most interested members of the audience to pay the artist a little to produce and publish good work - instead of a wealthy few patrons (state or plutocrat).

This is a reversion to the natural business model for intellectual work. The 18th century legal artifice that enabled the sale of copies is over (the public are taking back their natural liberty to make copies).