> Journalism requires editorial freedom, who pays the bills should have literally no impact on reporting

And yet we all know that's not what really happens.

'In journalism, a hack writer is deemed to operate as a "mercenary" or "pen for hire", expressing their client's political opinions in pamphlets or newspaper articles'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack_writer

Kind of … more and more journalism outfits are going towards non-profit status. That usually involves some sort of ideological position: National Review is neoconservative, Jacobite is far left, n+1 is progressive.

That’s not really what we usually mean by news, but that’s the mode being adopted by many news outlets.

The UK Guardian is an interesting example of a highly ideological oped/news spin organization that relies heavily on the readers it influences to fund itself, which has been quite successful recently after hemorrhaging cash and readers previously under its 'run by a trust' model. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited

> That’s not really what we usually mean by news, but that’s the mode being adopted by many news outlets.

National Review was founded in 1955, and is the only one of the examples you cite that even pretends to have a journalistic component (though its overtly mainly commentary); Jacobin is overtly commentary, not news; n+1 is a literary, rather than journalistic, outlet.

That's not really good examples of a novel trend in journalism.

I didn’t give any examples of for-profits that converted to non-profits. My examples are expository, not argumentative.