> Subscriptions aren't affordable for poor people
If people are affluent enough that advertising to them supports the business, then they probably do have the money to pay.
Most people in rich countries certainly can afford to pay. 68% of households in the UK have streaming services, most of the rest pay the TV license fee to the BBC. A lot of those who do not choose not to, rather than being unable to afford to.
> government funding creates a conflict of interest
There are ways of dealing with this and blocking government interference. Hypothecated taxes as in the UK.
> so does relying on philanthropists.
Different conflicts of interest though.
Good news costs money, and the poor get propagandized to.
I'm not even sure how the NyTimes justifies this with their massive subscription revenue. They probably just expect people to suck it up, despite greatly lowering the value of their product.
Anyway, Manufacturing Consent came out almost 40 years ago and we're still stuck in the same place if you only look at cable news, newspapers, and radio. Hell even NPR pimps themselves to the nearest think-tanks and corporations (despite a reputation for delivering unbiased coverage from the perspective of liberals)—during the iraq war people with little subtlety referred to them as "national petroleum radio".
There's a difference too between the type of ad and the companies behind its reach - Uncle Bob's Local Mattress Shop and Citizens United are two entirely different beasts.
Imagining that people use their brains is also unrealistic. Presumably I'm talking to the remaining people in the room.
If paying full-price for the news isn't an option, I'd rather opt out entirely to avoid filling my head with random crap someone really wants me to hear about "terrorists" and "western values" or whatever.
Wait, people are paying to be advertised to? It's like we learned nothing from newspapers.