Agreed, the only news I pay for is the economist. No other publication comes close to it in terms of quality, maturity and consistency of perspective, and reach. Pricey, but worth it.

The Economist is also amazingly objective in its reporting. It's the only publication (that I know of) where you feel like both sides get a fair hearing.

I subscribed to the Economist back in the day. I found an old joke to be true: get the weekly magazines, put them aside for six months, and then read them: they'll be more fun than Mad magazine.

I'm considering subscribing to the Financial Times, since Bloomberg is out of reach.

My line has been that it comes out every week and it takes me eight days to read it. I’m always falling behind.

I said this in another comment but I get a lot out of Bloomberg's financial and legal news. FT can be good and Foreign Affairs is usually pretty solid.

Bloomberg is definitely worth it, although in a parallel universe they would make less of a deal of every single tiny bit of news as if it were all so important. Everything is breaking news, even when it isn't, so it gets exhausting after a while. You have to watch/read it with that filter on, IMHO.

But then again, they aren't the only ones guilty of this, so I can't really pin in it on them specifically

The problem with this business model is that the paper caters to the ideology of the subscribers.

Look at the New York Times as an example

I don't see how that is worse than catering to the ideology of advertisers. Can you elaborate?

I don't see how it is better. You seem to be ok with catering to an ideology.

I don’t see how ideology is escapable. How is the editorial staff being influenced by advertisers better than being influenced by subscribers?

"I don’t see how ideology is escapable."

And that is your problem.

You are OK with ideology in NEWS.

I accept that everyone is vulnerable to ideology and I skeptically read the news.

I am interested in reporting of facts and insight from those with an ideology different from my own.

You still have not answered the question. Advertisers have an ideology and a purpose when they influence news. How is that better?

No you expect ideology. You don't accept people doing their jobs professionally even if it counters to their ideology. That's a fail.

You said "Ideally, no ads at all, so there is no conflict of interest for the publication when choosing topics and investigating." But there is one, and it's subscriber based. You accept bias as long as it is subscriber based.

Your idea is flawed and your question is flawed.

If anything having both revenue streams is more likely to help then only one or the other. The publication doesn't have to rely only on advertising because they have subscribers. This is not an option your question asked. You question is either or which is flawed.

There are publications that have been critical of their advertisers, this is not a new concept. Multiple revenue streams help with this.

That is a more useful answer than your previous replies. Thank you.

You have not convinced me that ideology is something that journalism can escape. At the most fundamental level, some journalists consider freedom of the press differently than others. Some challenge the government more than others. Choosing to report on child labor is an example of an ideological stance.

Every time The Economist posts a story about the failure of the healthcare system and gun violence in the United States, it is because they have an ideology.

I fully expect every news source to have an ideology and to be honest about it.

I was briefly subscribed to Apple News+, but then I discovered that even if you pay it's still stuffed with ads everywhere, making the experience just plain worse than a browser with 12ft.io and so on.

Well products like the ones you describe do exist. But apparently you don’t know them because you listed Bloomberg as high value when it’s a pay to play publication.

That's why I am asking. Do you have suggestions?

I have mixed feelings about the Financial Times. They are very expensive and often the title of the article leads you to believe you are about to obtain some deeper insight into a topic, but the article itself is often surface level at best and feels rushed. It’s better than a lot of other periodicals but not worth the price of entry.