[ceejayoz]

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.

[somenameforme]

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:

Washington Post - "Irrefutable" : https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/i...

NYTimes - "Irrefutable and Undeniable" : https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/opinion/irrefutable-and-u...

[gruez]

>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.

[Godel_unicode]

> People, in general, want what's good for people, in general.

We know very different people. People I know say they want to eat healthy and learn new things. Then they eat McDonalds while watching TV reruns.

[Georgelemental]

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.

[harpiaharpyja]

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.

[ceejayoz]

> I think there is a possible world where an ecosystem of journalism could develop.

I think it's a recipe for insular bubbles.