1
Opinion
Why the Truth Is So Hard to Monetize
There’s a simple problem at the heart of modern media.
People don’t want to pay to hear the truth. That sounds harsh, but it explains a lot.
The truth is often uncomfortable. It challenges beliefs, exposes contradictions, and rarely entertains. It doesn’t flatter the reader, and it doesn’t promise a better version of reality. And that makes the truth a hard sell.
Now compare that to advertising.
Advertising doesn’t sell the truth—it sells a version of reality people want to believe. A soft drink becomes happiness. A car becomes status. A product becomes identity. These are not outright lies, they are carefully shaped narratives designed to appeal, not to inform. And it works.
Because people are far more willing to pay, directly or indirectly, for something that makes them feel good than for something that makes them think.
The Media Dilemma
This creates a structural problem for news. If readers won’t pay for truth, then news organisations have to find other ways to fund themselves. That “other way” has almost always been advertising.
It seems harmless. Advertisers fund the platform, readers get free access, and journalists do their job.
But there’s a catch. The moment advertising becomes the primary source of revenue, the incentives begin to shift.
Content that attracts attention is prioritised over content that informs. Controversy is favoured over clarity
Emotion outperforms accuracy and slowly, subtly, advertisers begin to influence what gets published—and what doesn’t. Editors know what customers want and the system self-adjusts.
The result is a gradual drift away from the truth — not because anyone set out to lie, but because truth no longer results in the optimal outcome.
Lies Scale Better Than Truth
There’s another uncomfortable reality: Truth is constrained. Lies are not.
The truth has boundaries. It must align with facts, evidence, and consistency. You can’t stretch it too far without breaking it.
But a compelling narrative? That can be shaped, exaggerated, simplified, or selectively framed to maximise its impact.
That’s why misleading headlines spread faster than accurate ones.
Why outrage travels further than nuance.
Why certainty sells better than doubt.
Truth often requires effort from the reader - A good story does not.
A Different Approach
If advertising distorts truth, and subscriptions struggle to sustain it, then what are the alternatives?
One approach is to realign incentives—not by removing money from the system, but by changing how it flows.
That is the idea behind Hold The News.
Sponsors don’t pay for control. They don’t get to shape the editorial direction or influence what is written. Instead, they fund the platform as a whole.
Writers, on the other hand, are paid based on readership—on whether people actually choose to engage with what they’ve written.
This creates a subtle but important shift:
Sponsors get value through visibility, not control
Writers are rewarded for writing something worth reading
And editorial independence is preserved because no one party controls both the money and the message
It doesn’t solve everything, but it removes one of the biggest pressures that distorts modern media—the quiet expectation that content should serve the advertiser first.
Something Worth Reading
Ultimately if writers write something worth reading - people will read it and sponsors will have their message seen - everyone wins.
People don’t want to pay to hear the truth. That sounds harsh, but it explains a lot.
The truth is often uncomfortable. It challenges beliefs, exposes contradictions, and rarely entertains. It doesn’t flatter the reader, and it doesn’t promise a better version of reality. And that makes the truth a hard sell.
Now compare that to advertising.
Advertising doesn’t sell the truth—it sells a version of reality people want to believe. A soft drink becomes happiness. A car becomes status. A product becomes identity. These are not outright lies, they are carefully shaped narratives designed to appeal, not to inform. And it works.
Because people are far more willing to pay, directly or indirectly, for something that makes them feel good than for something that makes them think.
The Media Dilemma
This creates a structural problem for news. If readers won’t pay for truth, then news organisations have to find other ways to fund themselves. That “other way” has almost always been advertising.
It seems harmless. Advertisers fund the platform, readers get free access, and journalists do their job.
But there’s a catch. The moment advertising becomes the primary source of revenue, the incentives begin to shift.
Content that attracts attention is prioritised over content that informs. Controversy is favoured over clarity
Emotion outperforms accuracy and slowly, subtly, advertisers begin to influence what gets published—and what doesn’t. Editors know what customers want and the system self-adjusts.
The result is a gradual drift away from the truth — not because anyone set out to lie, but because truth no longer results in the optimal outcome.
Lies Scale Better Than Truth
There’s another uncomfortable reality: Truth is constrained. Lies are not.
The truth has boundaries. It must align with facts, evidence, and consistency. You can’t stretch it too far without breaking it.
But a compelling narrative? That can be shaped, exaggerated, simplified, or selectively framed to maximise its impact.
That’s why misleading headlines spread faster than accurate ones.
Why outrage travels further than nuance.
Why certainty sells better than doubt.
Truth often requires effort from the reader - A good story does not.
A Different Approach
If advertising distorts truth, and subscriptions struggle to sustain it, then what are the alternatives?
One approach is to realign incentives—not by removing money from the system, but by changing how it flows.
That is the idea behind Hold The News.
Sponsors don’t pay for control. They don’t get to shape the editorial direction or influence what is written. Instead, they fund the platform as a whole.
Writers, on the other hand, are paid based on readership—on whether people actually choose to engage with what they’ve written.
This creates a subtle but important shift:
Sponsors get value through visibility, not control
Writers are rewarded for writing something worth reading
And editorial independence is preserved because no one party controls both the money and the message
It doesn’t solve everything, but it removes one of the biggest pressures that distorts modern media—the quiet expectation that content should serve the advertiser first.
Something Worth Reading
Ultimately if writers write something worth reading - people will read it and sponsors will have their message seen - everyone wins.
