I think your comment is very apt. If you don't pay for the news, you being manipulated is the product. You have to support people who inform for our actual benefit.

I subscribe to a couple digital periodicals. My last paper subscription lapsed about four months ago.

Paying doesn't help. It always galled me that I was paying for the privilege of getting ads.

My paper subscription lapsed years ago. The local paper is actually pretty good, but I find I don't miss it much anymore.

Perhaps you should find some news sites that don't have ads then? Something that only exists on readership support? Some stories only eventually break into 'mainstream media' (ugh, I used that phrase, I'm sorry) through these sites.

This is a false dichotomy. Please present evidence that shows that paying for news means you are not being manipulated. I counter your lack of evidence with an opinion that states the opposite: News being written by people, almost all news has some form of bias. Sometimes it's barely there, sometimes it's in-your-face.

Spurting out 'false dichotomy' and stating that I haven't provided the necessary treatise of evidence is kind of ridiculous. I hope you can see how pretentious that sounds.

If a news organization only exists because the Koch brothers own it and it operates at a loss, its primary purpose isn't to serve unbiased news, but propaganda.

Contrast that to a news agency or journalist whose existence is funded only through subscriptions, with zero advertising. These type of agencies are not subservient to a Murdoch, a pharma company, or anybody. They only have to interest their readership sufficiently.

Of course there is still bias. But now you have multiple viewpoints. If the only news you're getting is from papers owned by billionaires or heavily moderated forums owned by billionaires, then good luck.

I would agree with you that sending money to Fox News isn't going to help with the bias much.

He was right, you implied paying for the news removes the manipulation, which is a ridiculous notion.

That's not what I said. I said that if you don't pay for the news, then you being manipulated is the product. That's not the same thing as simply forking over money magically removing bias. The latter is a ridiculous notion and that equates to your straw-man argument.

Do you really think a trusted news source with corporate overlords is able operate with unlimited autonomy? I would have no issue if there was a large diversity of ownership with conflicting issues. But I don't really see sufficient conflict in corporate America.

Even if you do pay for news, you being manipulated is still the product - the barrier to entrance just ensures you're a higher-quality, more attentive product. Paid newspapers have always had ads, always been subsidised by newspaper barons with their own interests at heart. Here in the UK, the newspaper chain most aggressive about online paywalls is also the one that openly brags about influencing elections. "It's the Sun wot won it", and you can't get the Sun for free.