. . . who pays for the journalists and the infrastructure ?

@FearlessFly

I don't know how it ought to be done but I do know that this capitalistic approach is no good.

The information available to people shouldn't be limited to what they can afford. A well informed populace is the cornerstone of the greater good.

And the fact that the livelihood of the people who provide that information is dependent on what they are able to sell incentivizes them to sensationalism and exaggerated news. News shouldn't be entertainment, it is sacred.

@RoboGraham "capitalistic approach is no good" -- I wouldn't go THAT far.

"incentivizes them to sensationalism" -- agree. The book "Trust me, I'm Lying" (a very good read) makes that case very well :

[goodreads.com]

@FearlessFly

I would like to have some thoughts but I am ignorant on the subject.

You think capitalistic journalism is a good idea?

@RoboGraham . . . not sure I would go THAT far
I think competition is a double-edged sword.

@FearlessFly

I think so too.

On the other end of the spectrum, I think it would be a very bad idea if news is provided by and paid for by a government program or something along those lines. So I suppose it's best to find a balance between the two.

@RoboGraham . . . my understanding -- in the UK, anyone with a TV (this may be updated) pays a fee/tax/subscription which is how the BBC is funded (that's probably simplistic). I also think that despite this "government funding", the BBC routinely 'attacks' the UK government.

@FearlessFly

That sounds logical. That way, their funding isn't dependent on what they sell so they can report accurately.