>Either way, what way do you propose that normal citizens get the investigative information needed to participate in a democracy if we don't have journalism? I

>Either way, what way do you propose that normal citizens get the investigative information needed to participate in a democracy if we don't have journalism? I think there isn't one, but I also think that average citizens are already not getting the information needed to participate in a democracy from journalists. Almost any politically important issue is inundated with political advocacy that's masquerading as journalism. That isn't to say that there aren't journalists who don't do this, but rather that as an industry, journalism seems to push a lot of questionable content. There isn't an alternative to journalism, which is why we should be skeptical of it. Regulatory capture happens in the government. A similar problem can appear in journalism, where a journalism organizations can be "caught" by those looking to control the narrative. I like the way Reuters does things. They seem to be much less biased than almost any of the generally well-known publications. Even then, they might change in the future.