# data[].attributes.body
the writers are pushed to be better meritocratically by having them put their own name on the line with how their name are published as the author and how each article that they produce are tied to them for the responsibility hence creating a check and balance for writers too

# data[].attributes.body
the writers would be pushed to write articles that are more appealable to the masses hence more traffic for the media company. they want to make it as appealable as possible because they themselves the writers are not only upholding the reputation of the company but also for themselves creating a system where writers are pushed by their own self to create better articles that suit the masses and creating more traffic

# data[].attributes.body
writers can have the space of creativity they need to fully prosper in their speciality. the checks and balance to what they release to through the media is on how their name are also cited in the making of the article, this gives them the responsibility of that article and any backlash on said article would also be taken by the writers themselves and this act as a check and balance to not create a too radical media company

# data[].attributes.body
on our side we want the media company to gain larger revenue because of how their writers are now pushed to appeal to how the masses react to certain stories making the media company's publication more popular overall

while also the writers gaining the publicity they need to advance their careers and gain a system of reward for what they worked hardly for

We are advocating for a meritocratic system of media where the best wins and the bad are filtered out naturally

# data[].attributes.body
when a media company focuses on being cohesive then it destroys the flexibility of being in a media market. in the media market public opinion can easily change at any point of the way and when a media company is cohesive and dont have the flexibility to change their stance on an issue then public opinion can undergo a backlash against that media company. in a byline model we can see which articles and which opinion does well in the media market and we can naturally filter out which article is doing good and bad. it is meritocratic

# data[].attributes.body
in a cohesive model if there are any backlash towards the media company or a bad article then the name of the media company is ENTIRELY to blame. in a byline model then the writers are also accountable and reducing the effect of backlash

# data[].attributes.body
writers are now able to publish articles faster than their cohesive model counterparts. when a new story breaks and its gaining virality every second, then every second matters in a media market. the first one to publish gets the most money first. in the new world we are in a world where virality and fast media is KING.

# data[].attributes.body
writers in a cohesive model would not have any reason to do better than what they already are. theyre not motivated to do any better because their name wont be known, their articles would be separated from the creator hence there is no reason to get good at writing. in byline model every writer are motivated to do good because it's your creativity your soul that you put into your article and you are moved to do the best you can for your name

# data[].attributes.body
pushing a certain agenda in a media company is not a style anymore like how it was back then. with how social media now is more flexible as ever with ever changing opinions and contras then a more flexible byline system is needed to gain more opinion from many sides of an issue or news

# data[].attributes.body
lets look at the authors and how they work in your world, in our world we can create great authors create famous names. but in your side the exploitation of writers can happen at any time because theyre not only underpaid as you said because theyre cut. they cant develop as only the people in their inner circle know that they are famous. they cant spread their wings

# data[].attributes.body
anonymous journalists are journalists that don't want to focus on their career and are not brave enough to advance their career with the fame. in our side of the house journalists are pushed to be better and can advance, we can see clearly that their side supports stagnantism and our side support flourishing with your creativity

# data[].attributes.body
diversity is needed for flexibility.

# data[].attributes.body
exploitation is actually bad for the media company because being sued by the writers is a bad thing for the company, how is exploitation a good thign in a company when a legal system is backing writers

# data[].attributes.body
even if you are a liberal writer that are working in your company then what does the writer gain? just a wage? in our side they can gain fame and gain more opportunities in the media market. again your only gain for the writers is a pay that is not even good with no bonuses

# data[].attributes.body
the great authors are created by THIS COMPANY. audiences would know that THIS company is the company that create great writers. the name of the media company is upheld with how they can breed good writers but also filter writers that dont do well.

# data[].attributes.body
we can filter out from diversity because we can see which goes good and which goes not