[boxed]

You can't have news be a business. Period. It's really that simple. It's like having schools be a business, or healthcare, roads, regulation agencies, etc.

You can't produce a system where the EPA gets its funding from the amount of pollution it stops for example. That's a perverse incentive. These types of organizations are by definition cost centers. And must be treated as such.

[hackandthink]

In Germany, public (öffentlich-rechtlich) media are generously financed with a household tax. Unfortunately, the quality of reporting is still poor. Most of the money is spent on stupid entertainment and sports reporting.

The reduction of direct state/party influence (2014) has also achieved little.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rundfunkrat

[boxed]

Yea, Sweden has a similar system and problem. A bit part is that the public broadcasters think they are competing on views. Which is rather wrongheaded I think. They should focus on quality and education, not on just getting views without substance.

[zbentley]

That gets tricky fast. News as nonprofit might work, but would likely have even more severe resourcing issues than smaller newsrooms are having today.

If news sources were publicly funded like schools, that compromises the very important news function of reporting on the government.

[boxed]

> If news sources were publicly funded like schools, that compromises the very important news function of reporting on the government.

Not necessarily. In Sweden the public service system has independent right to basically tax the population. So it's not the government paying the news, it's the news taxing the country directly. I'm not saying that doesn't have its own issue, of course it does, but it's a smart tradeoff I think.

[morning-coffee]

If the news is a cost center, who pays for it? I'm assuming your implied solution is to roll-up news production/curation to be under the federal government? (Assuming U.S. here, since you mentioned EPA.) Aren't the strings of government ultimately pulled by forces leading back to businesses? Isn't lobbying more influential than individual tax payers in how their taxes are spent? Do you really think the end result would be materially better (in the U.S.) if news were only provided by the government?

New has always been a business. The 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution was put in place precisely to prevent government from controlling the press.

I think, like the junk food analogy implies, it's up to the end consumer to decide what to purchase. Yes, there are psychological and neurological factors at play... sugar is addicting, and there is a dopamine hit in anticipating what's behind the click-bait... but if enough individuals realize there are better things to eat and better information to consume, these business peddling junk would go out of business.

Or, another possible solution, while I'm spitballing... ban paid advertising in some ways. Let local community advertising by local business through, by all means, but ban ads to consumers by conglomerates who operate outside of some radius?

(Corrected typo.)

[boxed]

The US has basically removed laws and taboos against theft and bribery for corporations. So yea, I agree while that stands the country will have trouble doing anything useful with government.