Doesn’t slower, better news conflict with how news is primarily funded today i.e. advertising? Tabloid news has existed much longer than I’ve been alive, and th

Doesn’t slower, better news conflict with how news is primarily funded today i.e. advertising? Tabloid news has existed much longer than I’ve been alive, and their style (attention-grabbing, exaggerated titles) matches the kinds of ads they display. A newspaper on a slower circulation cycle would need to attract advertisers that market on similar cycle if the newspaper is dependent on ad revenue (e.g. month-long offers). A subscription-only / patron-only news service makes sense for the typical customer of a Bloomberg terminal, but what about everyone else? Do they just pay for headlines or three-sentence summaries? You might say that most people don’t need that frequency of news, and for most topics I would agree. However, there are topics like sports that create news on such a frequent basis, and topics like politics where one could argue that being accurately informed in a timely manner is a responsibility and a necessity for a well-functioning democracy. Tl;dr I don’t think you can separate the news from the manner in which it is funded, and the issues in quality and business-viability that we’ve heard a lot about is evidence for it.