Journalism has always had its risks, and after Rachel Gilmore this week unveiled a coordinated harassment and terror campaign directed towards herself and other female (as well as BIPOC) journalists only to receive crickets from police in response, it seems the field is not getting any safer. But was a mass-market model that generated as much profit from journalism as possible while relying on taxes from said profits to fund police who protect those reporters always something of a fantasy to begin with? 

Does the older subscription model, where journalists are embedded in a political movement and the followers of said movement protect the reporters whom share their perspectives, offer more economic and personal security than the "unbiased" mass media of the past? If the cultural war is already being fought, can journalists only defend themselves by choosing a side? Your hosts discuss.