Economics of news: Who will pay?

It was billed as the "New Economic Models for News" Conference. I had hoped it would be business models but the "business" of newspapers wasn't the theme; it was more about saving journalism -- more specifically, journalists.
The audience of about 40 was made up mostly of academics from the University of Minnesota, journalism students, journalists or former journalists. And for the most part they were looking for something other than business as the answer. They had been wrung out by conglomerates they felt were more interested in payback than providing a community benefit.
Consequently the models discussed were non-profits, Employee Stock Ownerships, government funded (ala British Broadcasting Corporations), cooperatives and a little know setup called L3C which is a low-profit limited liability company. Now law in a handful of states, proponents are drafting federal legislation and purposely crafting newspapers as potential users. The perceived benefit of an L3C is you can endorse candidates which is not allowed under non-profit models.
Each of these proposals still begged the same question: If these are all such great ideas, how come they aren't being widely used?
First off, there isn't enough non-profit start up money around to bail out all newspapers in trouble. Existing non-profits are struggling too. And, as Joel Kramer of MinnPost.com told everyone, even then you need a "business plan" to sustain yourself after the start up funds are exhausted. Kramer said his plan requires that readers pay; only a quarter of his revenue is coming from advertising.
ESOPs have their pitfalls one of which is dividends tend to benefit the participants and it's a chore to convince employees to take a smaller cut and, oh say, invest in a better inserting machine.
Government-funded news organizations, it could be argued, run counter to the very core of the Fourth Estate's watchdog on government. Although, there was the argument that PBS and NPR are not exactly shrinking violets when government needs to be accountable. (However, they too are having revenue problems.)
All these plans still were struggling with the same problem facing for-profit newspapers -- availability of cash. When credit was easy, you could leverage one dollar against five. And debt load is exactly what got some newspaper chains in trouble.
The problem isn't that newspapers are not profitable; for the most part, they are solid businesses and have adapted to many challenges over the century. The problem many face now is crushing debt loads at a time when advertising revenue is soft.
One of the more practical speakers, Steve Yelvington of Morris Communications, had it right. Journalism never had a business model. It was always subsidized by something -- political parties started it, then it morphed to the commercial application of hooking up businesses with consumers. Just like TV which is an entertainment medium, not a news medium.
Yelvington said we are in a "hurricane" right now and after the storm passes, things will have been moved around. Nothing will be the same.
But in the end we still must find the answer to the central question: what will be the new subsidy for journalism? Or, put more directly, who will pay for the news?