American Media Inc’s code of ethics is a stern document. The 22 pages run through the New York-based tabloid newspaper company’s strict rules on not accepting bribes or hospitality. It is very clear that employees cannot use the company’s funds or services to contribute to any political campaign. “When in doubt, ask yourself … ‘will my actions have the appearance of impropriety?’”

In British journalism, the entire code of ethics for the industry was long based on a similar pithy epithet: “What will it look like in Private Eye?” While most media companies have a code of ethics, our readers, viewers, listeners and customers could be forgiven for not knowing where or what they are.

That AMI, the parent company of the sensationalist gossip sheet National Enquirer, even has an ethics code might surprise some, but its complete violation of its own rules this week surprised no one. In a flurry of indictments and court hearings surrounding Donald Trump’s election as president, the tabloid newspaper created the most sensational story.

AMI’s chief executive, David Pecker, who might not be that familiar with his own code, was revealed to have authorised the payment of $150,000 (£120,000) to the model Karen McDougal for her story that she had an affair with Trump. The contract was made in September 2016, just before election day, and would have been a sensational scoop. But the story never ran, and the payments were in fact part of a “catch and kill” operation to keep McDougal quiet on behalf of Trump.

Federal prosecutors dropped the bombshell during the sentencing of Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, last week. Prosecutors announced that AMI, and Trump’s friend Pecker, had admitted to the payments in exchange for immunity from prosecution. There is nothing in the code of ethics that covers the eventuality of “what to do if caught committing crime”.

It is richly ironic that Trump’s presidency has so far withstood detailed investigative reporting into his campaign finances, his use of foundation money, his tax affairs and his Russian property deals – but looks at its shakiest because of a favour performed by a shady tabloid executive. Such is the unrewarding nature of accountability journalism.

While the practices of the National Enquirer do not constitute what most professional news people would think of as quality journalism, to the broader public the dirty deeds that place commercial media in concert with politicians and their corrupt lawyers come as no surprise. As with practices such as phone hacking in Britain, the misuse of power by corporate media has much wider repercussions for journalism as a whole.

What defines a free press has to some extent been its ugly variety: everything from the muckraking, bin-rifling red-tops who would happily report sheep on the moon if it sold an extra copy or two, to the community reporter doggedly chasing down corruption at all levels. Historically, the quality of journalism has had only a glancing relationship to the profitability of the companies producing it. This is why news organisations whose codes of ethics serve as little more than litter-tray lining for fat cats have not been held back financially.

If one were to make any optimistic predictions for 2019 about journalism, it would surely be that accountability is the new business model.

As predictable as the National Enquirer’s imbroglio with the Trump campaign has proven, the most surprising news of the week in American media came at the other end of the spectrum. The successful financing of a European enterprise, the Correspondent – a Dutch idea pioneered in the US by a team who joined forces with the New York University professor and leading press critic Jay Rosen to try to establish that a model based on reader contributions and a different style of journalism could work.

Last week, much to the surprise of many (myself included), the team reached its first financing goal of $2.5m to start a newsroom in the US. Particularly admirable about the Correspondent’s campaign was that it raised membership without publishing a word. It asked people to buy into the idea of journalism created in a transparent, non-hierarchical way.

Before one gets carried away, it is worth remembering that $2.5m is a tiny amount, even to support non-profit news. And the cynical might argue that it is easier to raise money with a strong campaign than it is with actual journalism that one can more readily evaluate. Nevertheless, it’s a great achievement and a sign that, to capture both the public imagination and cash to support journalism, companies now have to lead with their values and offer transparency in the process.

The Guardian itself is an example of a company that has, through its messages and high-profile stories, gathered more than 1 million readers who contribute on the basis of support and affiliation rather than transaction. In the US, giving to public media voluntarily rather than through a licence fee has long been an established model, but, unlike in Europe, the organising principle of all media has been profitability. Other American publishers who are having the financial rug tugged from under their feet by the onward migration of advertising into the bottomless coffers of big tech are also looking at supporting their newsrooms through membership.

There are now more than 70 US newsrooms, both profit and non-profit, that incorporate aspects of membership. BuzzFeed News is the most high profile of the group of digital publishers that are pivoting to readers with an offer that will, for the first time, test the younger demographic’s loyalty to news. But as the US media news site Nieman Lab noted, being a public radio station is a long way from being a company that has ingested half a billion dollars of venture capital. Membership, loyalty or non-profit donations is a tough business model. Many of those dabbling with it are finding that everything – from codes of ethics to employee salaries – will become public property, potentially affecting the bottom line.

The questions over non-profit and membership-funded journalism are many. Is it a fad powered by Trumpism? How big is the market really? Is being beholden to readers as unhealthy as being beholden to advertisers?

If, as we expect, 2019 sees the rise of the reader as the most significant trend in journalism, then we are about to find out. And if it means more Correspondents and fewer Enquirers, then this is all to the good.