> Democracy should not be entertainment. Democracy should not be for profit. But why? If "democracy" isn't profitable or entertaining (and FWIW I agree those

> Democracy should not be entertainment. Democracy should not be for profit. But why? If "democracy" isn't profitable or entertaining (and FWIW I agree those shouldn't be preconditions for quality democracy), then it will have to be subsidized by someone. Who will do that? What is their reason for putting up that money? And - most importantly - who decides whether the end product is "good enough", and what changes can they demand for the subsidy to continue?