> I would posit that all news companies (some legal definition) should be required to be non-profit entities.

That's not really compatible with a free press. In terms of regulating the broadcast spectrum you have more latitude because its a scare public good. But I think you'll have a hard time getting Pinch Sulzberger and Rupert Murdoch to stop publishing.

Another view has it entirely consistent. Universal access to the press, not merely those who have sufficient financing, based on actual quality of product, not dopamine-inducing crap, could be an improvement.

Using the force of the state as an editorial voice is the opposite of a free press. I understand that a case can be made for what your saying, but make no mistake - it is a case against a free press.

This isn't the "force of the state". It's the capability of the state to channel funds into vital infrastructure and services the private sector does not, and can not serve.

We disagree profoundly.

That seems like a nightmare as far as freedom of speech goes, and an even bigger nightmare as far as enforcement goes. I mean, there are an awful lot of internet sites offering news, so would that mean setting up a blog reporting news to make money from ads would suddenly be illegal?

If they're subsidized, they know where that money is coming from, and they'll be less likely to report on the misdeeds of the government subsidizing them.