> Journalism, where the incentives of profit don't align well with the mission, might need another model. I agree with this sentiment, but I don't know that I'

> Journalism, where the incentives of profit don't align well with the mission, might need another model. I agree with this sentiment, but I don't know that I've seen another model demonstrated that works much better. State-run media like the CBC or BBC are still incentivized by advertisers, and also beholden to government - this still sets an implicit bias, as viewpoints that would have the government reduce funding to the state-run media aren't likely to be heavily popularized on there (go figure), the same way viewpoints that are counter to what advertisers want their products associated with aren't going to be seeing much if any airtime. > Another model is the news associations, such as the AP What you have there is a media cartel, something that provides far too powerful of a megaphone. Just like that recent Sinclair clip that was going around last week with multiple newscasters reading the same script in sync, the AP has the power to set the tone and message for thousands of newspapers. I think the massive resulting feedback waves that come from such loud voices is damaging; it sets into play social oscillations so strong they can tear people apart. If anything, I'd like to see a model that pushes for more decentralization, that puts more competition into the game, that makes the individual players smaller. Give me a reason to want to read one paper over another other than my own confirmation bias.