>Where would the money come from to pay for important news reporting, for example

Governments and private individuals already produce plenty of news without relying on income from copyright. The BBC is publicly funded.

As somebody who grew up in the time of government-only media, let me assure you that you don't want the world to regress to that. Copyrighted information is better than no information.

I broadly agree with the underlying sentiment, however this is a classic false dichotomy espoused by people and interests heavily invested in maintaining the status quo. I would argue that news organizations like ProPublica could exist without copyright, and does not rely on public funds. NPR and PBS are publicly subsidized, but not to the extent that they are obliged to operate as state media (or can even be credibly accused of bowing under pressure from government actors). It’s a convenient myth that copyright is somehow inevitable or necessary, or that it fosters creative endeavors.