[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.