>> why we should believe that there is a business model out there that doesn't grossly warp coverage We should believe that this business model exists if we be

>> why we should believe that there is a business model out there that doesn't grossly warp coverage We should believe that this business model exists if we believe that there is a demand for a truly unbiased, unwarped news outlet. If there is truly a demand, then whatever outlet provides it will be so successful that the business side will have no trouble selling advertisements (or advertorials, which are only a problem to me if not called out - and in many cases just end up functioning as extremely high quality native ads, rather than ruining journalism). The problem arises if there is not a substantial demand for this, but that is much more of a civic problem than a journalism problem. If someone writes perfect, high quality, objective journalism, but no one reads it or even cares to know it exists, what then? My read? Some reporters will be out there, gathering news, and the very best will rise. What we call journalism (editorials and investigative pieces) will remain in existence, but will move to personal blogs, websites of what were once traditional newspapers, and new media (places like Grantland, Slate, The Atlantic's website, Vanity Fair's site, etc.). There will also be a major increase in local, citizen generated coverage of news, and what used to be local newspapers and news stations will becoming aggregators of local content. I don't really think much changes about journalism beyond opening it up to more people and changing the medium/deliverer of news.