I'm not sure that's accurate. Whether or not I like their reporting has no bearing on whether their reporting is true or accurate, which is what I need.
The point is that what you think is true might not necessarily be true. So only reading things you like and believe to be accurate could mean you’re getting the truth, but it could also mean you’re getting a feedback loop of misinformation and indoctrination.
No clue. I try not to have a fixed opinion on news stories as they come out, but do try to read books, articles, and news about particular topics and the history leading up to them. Then, sometimes, that coalesces into an actual, informed opinion – but on a few topics.
> You hold them accountable by not paying them if you don't like their reporting.
This means the journalists are now beholden to the class of people who pay substackers; I suspect the feedback loop is much tighter (lose subscribers soon after publishing an article that speaks truth-to-the-new-power). This also encourages echo-chambers - writers will learn to know what their readers like and will stick to it: their income literally depends on it!
We are in violent agreement - only that I think society is worse-off for the tighter coupling between readers biases and the echo-chambers they obtain news.
I don't see that that matters. In either case, continuing operations means writing stuff your funders want to see. Piss them off, even if what you're saying is truthful, well written, etc., and your publication isn't long for the world.
People, in general, want what's good for people, in general. Defense contractors want what's good for defense contractors. The two in many, if not the majority, of cases are not aligned. "Defense" contractors benefit from war while society, in the vast majority of cases, loses. Of course that's where the media comes into play.
Invading Iraq on nonexistent evidence was actually 'saving the world from the imminent threat of an unhinged dictator actively developing WMD with the intent of using them, alongside endless irrefutable evidence.' The Iraq War, and especially the following two articles, played a major role in developing my worldview. I still return to read them on occasion. This is why you don't want media backed by the war machine:
>People, in general, want what's good for people, in general.
That could mean hard hitting journalism that's truthful and unbiased, but it could also mean ragebait that keeps the audience angry, engaged, and affirms their views.
Journalism, to be useful to society, must be read. Pissing your readers off too badly is counterproductive to informing them, even if they don't pay your salary.
Well it could matter, in this hypothetical case where the public is directly funding journalists, because the public is not homogenous. I think there is a possible world where an ecosystem of journalism could develop.
So yes, each individual would be beholden to their audience. But it would be much healthier than everyone being beholden to the much smaller collection of groups who pull the strings of influence in our present situation.