[TheGirondin]

I would gladly subscribe to an NPR-caliber newspaper that doesn't have pushing liberal narratives as a #1 priority.

Just like Fox is #1 because it's the only not-liberal media outlet, a real not-liberal newspaper would have a huge following because of the lack of alternatives.

[bilbo0s]

This comment really does point to a couple of fundamental issues that would have to be overcome with any proposed solution. The first is that people often say they are willing to pay for a certain thing, but are generally not willing to do so in fact. The second is that people are not willing to pay for just any content. (TheGirondin, as an example, is willing to pay only for content that he/she construes to be NON-liberal.)

The first problem is that people say they are willing to pay for certain things, but are not willing to do so in fact. So even if you spend money producing NON-liberal content, you may, in a content marketplace with Facebook and Google, find few buyers who were ACTUALLY willing to give you money for it. This issue in particular, bedevils many industries. It's not at all unique to content industries, and even so, few people have found consistently workable solutions to address it.

The second issue is the fact that you would have to begin to produce content for sub-cultures. TheGirondin will only pay for content he/she construes to be NON-liberal. Others will be willing to pay only for content that they construe to be NON-conservative. Still others will want content they construe to be NON-Christian. And then some will want content they construe to be NON-Islamic. For some the content will need to be NON-Mexican. And some will want the content to be NON-Black. Etc etc etc.

We shouldn't underestimate the costs required to produce such content, nor the limited size of the audience of people who would ACTUALLY pay for such content. It is at once extraordinarily expensive for you to produce such content, and at the same time, extraordinarily cheap for Google and Facebook to distribute that expensive content for free anyway. In some of the worst cases, it's almost Quixotic to even try.

(Consider... what sports content could you produce without black people? You could certainly create sports leagues that disallow blacks. That would not be the issue. However, assuming you did spend all the money to do so...

you run into the second problem...

Who would pay you for that content with the regular sports leagues around competing with you?)

[dalbasal]

This is somewhat of a non sequitur, if you mean to imply that this can be aggregated up into a market for such a publication. People often interject with an "I would pay for xyz" in discussions like this. But in practice, people pay for the kinds of magazines you see on bookshelves. Journalists would love to (in principle) make higher quality stuff, but they get drawn into the click-baity, partisan flamewars because that's what actually sells papers (or eyeballs or whatever).

[jerrylives]

>a real not-liberal newspaper would have a huge following because of the lack of alternative

Like uh The Wall Street Journal? Lol.

And what do you do if your preferred media posts what may be construed as a liberal headline? Just unsubscribe immediately? Snowflake, much?

[TheGirondin]

>And what do you do if your preferred media posts what may be construed as a [opposing viewpoint] headline? Just unsubscribe immediately?

No, because I'm not fragile like liberals are.