• TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think that would be opening a pretty nasty can of worms. I don't trust any ruling power to decide what "quality" means for the press.

    • GlitterInfection@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Not really opening up anything. For instance, BBC news is regulated and a lot more reliable and factual than anything in the US. And the US had minimal regulations which were removed in the late 80s and others removed in the 90s. That's why the quality of journalism in the corporate-controlled world has crumbled in my lifetime.

      Or another way to put it: the ruling party DOES regulate the news in America, but the ruling party is the wealthy folks who own the news. There is almost no worse system than "funding" the news to get quality.