[ghaff]

>Are you being facetious with the fake news reference?

Not really. Broadcast news is ad-supported too--hence the decline in quality. You either have subscriptions--ad-supported, or taxpayer supported--as has been historically the case in the UK. So, yes, if ads don't work, either only the wealthier get access to higher quality news, people use libraries (good luck with that), or the government funds (which has its own source of issues).

Someone needs to pay for it.

[slg]

Ok, I understand your reasoning. The use of the specific term "fake news" rubbed me the wrong way. That term is linked with malicious propaganda so your initial comment called to mind dystopian ideas of having an underclass that the rest of society agrees to keep in their place through lies and deceit.

There are other options beyond just ad supported and tax payer supported. You can make news reporting a requirement of other government deals like what happened with over the air TV. You can do some sort of patronage model. That can range anywhere from a single source like people expected Bezos to handle WaPo, to the NPR model over numerous patrons, to the early internet model of still selling subscriptions but not putting the news behind a paywall. I'm sure there are plenty of other models out there too.

[robjan]

Is that not what happens anyway? In the UK, for example, the good quality print newspapers cost £2+ whereas the tabloid rags cost 20p.