> I wonder why there has been such silence on this
Yes, I would think that if there were any real journalism left, they would be all over this. For the sake of their profession, and the protection of their sources.
This has been used as an effective way to gaslight people with concerns about government censorship or surveillance, especially when 2020's myriad lies and sociopolitical events ensued.
Majority of news outlets have government subsidies of one sort or another, I wouldn't be surprised if those are the things keeping a lot of the legacy outlets in the green.
> Majority of news outlets have government subsidies of one sort or another
In the US? That's basically NPR and PBS, both of which are not in good graces with the current administration. So I don't think that's really the motivating factor.
Or are you calling ads subsidies? Sure, gov pays these news outlets for ads, but that's because of their size and reach. They aren't spending nearly as much for smaller outlets, though yeah, local outlets get ads for local campaigns.
Either way, I think the argument falls short. I said in the short term yes. That includes ads. But in the long run it is a bad strategy. Lack of quality journalism has been making the public more distrusting of the news. It gives legitimacy to claims of "fake news" even if such a thing is not binary and if those claims are being used liberally.
I'll put it this way. Would you rather have a million dollars now or make $10m per year for the rest of your life? I'd call someone a fool for taking the former option, yet it is the option most take. The only difference is I said the second option out loud.
But I don't think mainstream journalism points out computer nonsense because they're so intertwined with it all.
I mean, "we have a surveillance state" first points to "advertising" which is their revenue stream.