> The Internet is currently the best way to get access to honest, quality journalism

Honest, quality journalism is a fantasy. It never existed. Even Benjamin Franklin used his newspaper to influence elections by slandering his political rivals. Not to mention fake news[0].

[0]: https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2017/02/even-ben-frankli...

That’s a gross generalization if I ever heard one.

Both exist.

Please don't cross into personal attack. It breaks the site guidelines and discredits your position.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

People on this site say far worse things about other religions all the time.

We moderate such comments heavily: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que.... If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. You can help by flagging it or emailing us at [email protected].

Billion-dollar companies with competent management pay large amounts of money to newsgathering agencies and companies for accurate information with which they can make business decisions on. I trust the objectivity of journalism when I pay for it directly and the news is the product - rather than most online journalism where (in practice, at least from the soulless business position) the audience is the product for advertisers which necessarily means compromising journalism.

Nothing is free from bias - that much is true; that doesn't mean we should adopt your too-cynical attitude.

The thing to keep in mind is that paying for it is no guarantee that you aren't still also the product even without direct advertising. Incentives are a very messuy business and everything is a signal to someone - regardless of validity. There are no epistemological guarantees period so wariness is always required.

Glasnot. Glasnyet.