Besides finding alternatives to an advertising-based revenue model, a couple of possibilities for major outlets might help.
-
Limit the ownership stakes of any single individual, family, or corporate entity to 10% maximum of total shares in any major outlet (e.g. in the U.S., any one with 5-million-plus regular audience members). Companies of that size and influence should always be public. This would eliminate the malign (e.g. Murdoch) or feckless (e.g. Sulzberger) or psychopathic (e.g. any large corporation) influence of wealthy owners on editorial coverage. If the outlet is to be run at a loss, the losses can also be spread around to others who see it less as a tax write-off and more as a way to support a liberal-democratic institution.
-
A required open general statement of bias and intended audience, to be issued every year. The British press – as @Mungrul describes – is horrible, but those outlets don’t pretend they’re unbiased or objective like American ones do. Going one step further and having the bias clearly announced would likely temper the mercenary impulse we see in UK journalists.
While both solutions aren’t 100% cures and while both would doubtless make Libertarians cry or shed crocodile tears, they would help eliminate the Bothsidesism we currently see in major American outlets.
