• GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Private ownership of a news outlet breaks every definition of “free” in “free press”.

    A “free press” no longer exists.

    • Microw@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Eh… no? Most free press is privately owned. Just not by billionaires who influence the content.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        37 minutes ago

        Maybe non-profit would be best. Incentives to encourage good journalism, but not trying to raise the bottom line every year, chopping costs and spamming mass amounts of AI garbage because I’d bet 100 shitty articles is worth more than 1 good article for their bottom line.

        Easy access links to the journalists other works, peer reviews from other non-profit and about me profiles can also help people discern bias.

        I’m no expert though, so I’m sure someone has tried it and found making money is better for their paychecks

        • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          15 minutes ago

          What if it already exists, but you, like many others, don’t read it and instead continue to passively consume the very media you’re complaining about? Making better journalism doesn’t mean multiple generations of people hooked on social-media-feed dopamine hits will read it.

      • Furbag@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 hours ago

        When the billionaires who own the media and the highest level of government are in bed together so long as the government continues to tailor it’s policies to ensure that the wealthy stay wealthy, then the line is so blurred it might as well not exist.