[msla]

> Their money source is as protected from the government as it reasonably can be.

Obviously false.

> Really, the alternative is you have them beholden to billionaire owners and advertisers.

Or have them run as a non-profit which doesn't accept advertising and instead takes donations from a huge variety of sources, including the people who watch it.

Don't pretend there are no other funding models.

Don't pretend the fact the government has a strong hand in their funding doesn't impact what they consider to be newsworthy.

[am1988]

> Obviously false.

Justify this. The funding is legislated into place in such a way that they are not subject to the whims of a new budget. Removing it would require actually changing the law, which ensures that a government trying to do so is subject to scrutiny.

That seems about as good as you can reasonably expect.

> Don't pretend there are no other funding models.

I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth.

[msla]

> That seems about as good as you can reasonably expect.

... assuming you want the news to be government-funded and, therefore, government-run.

Some of us see a problem in that.