Final answer:
Government grants (option D) have not been commonly considered as an alternative funding method for mass media in the United States, unlike crowdfunding, subscription models, and advertising revenue.
Step-by-step explanation:
The student's question is focused on identifying which of the given options has not been considered as an alternative to traditional ways of funding mass media in the United States. Crowdfunding (option A), subscription models (option B), and advertising revenue (option C) have all been leveraged as non-traditional funding methods in recent times. However, government grants (option D) are generally associated with public broadcasting and not the mass media as a whole, which relies predominantly on advertising revenue and digital pay plans.
For context, the modern mass media landscape has significantly evolved with the rise of new media platforms. Traditional advertising revenues have seen a decline due to changes in consumer behavior and the advent of technologies that allow ad-skipping.
Meanwhile, crowdfunding has emerged as a way for creators to directly solicit financial support from their audiences for producing content. Subscription models, such as those of streaming services or satellite radio like SiriusXM, provide ad-free content in exchange for a fee. The changing media consumption habits force mass media companies to explore these alternative funding models.
On the other hand, public broadcasting often relies on a mix of viewer/listener support through donations, government funding, and grants from foundations. This source of funding is more characteristic of non-commercial, public-interest broadcasting rather than commercial mass media enterprises which are typically privately owned and profit-driven.