The first sentence was asking why you think non-commercial news sources would be bad for journalism. As to the rest, I think a lot of our disagreement comes fr

The first sentence was asking why you think non-commercial news sources would be bad for journalism. As to the rest, I think a lot of our disagreement comes from how we define the middle and whether "moderate centre" can exist on it's own or only relative to the local politics. There is a difference between philosophical differences in political views about subjective or unknown issues and actual bias, where ideological commitments result in irrational positions on subjects with real evidence (roughly: denial of evolution/climate change is most often political bias, differences in taxation policy or social safety net policy are most often philosophical differences) Also, I don't think I'm moderate centre or middle at all, nor am I just left. My worldview is based on science, rationality and skepticism so on the scale you are using I swing from centre to extreme left to fairly right depending on the issue. Perhaps that's why I consider the single axis political spectrum to be a framework for the ignorant and only useful to those writing the talking points. I certainly consider The Economist to be more similar to The Guardian than to the Daily Mail, which probably sounds crazy to you. I understand you could read the different broadsheets to understand how their politics differ but how do you translate that to bias? How have you decided where the middle is other than averaging the broadsheets? That's textbook middle ground fallacy. It's completely open to manipulation by shifts in the Overton window.