> So what, in your mind, is a more “democratic” news media?

Assuming the problems of voter participation are solved, I would like to see publicly funded journalism and the position of editor-in-chief as an elected position.

My criticism of US journalism is that they lay claim to legitimacy by being above the rabble. That is why they are able to decide what's in the best interests of the country. That's a claim to 1) a political role based on 2) an anti-democratic premise. I don't know of any expert specialization which makes a similar claim.

So, like, NPR? That already exists, of course.

Or should there be more direct political influence, as you suggest—NPR, but the editor in chief is elected every four years? That seems deeply problematic, for somewhat obvious reasons.

I’d love to know what those obvious reasons are, and whether they don’t ultimately boil down to paternalistic conservative bromides that people can’t be trusted to govern themselves.