> That is a orthogonal to the discussion we were having. The topic was whether people should have free access to news, and how should it be financed, not the quality of that news.
On the contrary, the quality of the news is very important to the discussion. There is no point in making trash freely available to the public, after all.
The topic is a bit more nuanced, and far wider than "not fitting my favourite narrative on some topics, so it is generally and objectively trash".
think about this: I will get mostly objective and useful reports of the flood approaching my home near the river regardless the narrative/interpretation they might have on some other topics, or the biased reporting on the merits of the government in handling the situation at the dams.
For me I'm not here to debate on the political policies of some governments, just gave a few examples of ways to fund public access to news. This discussion is over from my part.
On the contrary, the quality of the news is very important to the discussion. There is no point in making trash freely available to the public, after all.