Because it's not a good and it's not a service. It's not enjoyable, not pleasurable, and usually not well-made. It doesn't inspire thought or confidence and it's not actionable. It's my responsibility to be informed and it's a requirement of a free country that we all be informed, but it's not something I'm willing to trade for money because money is valuable and knowledge of current events is just drudgery (pun only intended after the fact).
Does this argument then reinforce the value of government news orgs like we see in Australia (ABC) & England (BBC) - if England's was to exist without the draconian tv licence?
Edited: I didnt mean impartial but rather non-commercial, updated.
I do not think it is all that good. I think the biggest problem is the nature of news media. It tends to shallow coverage, and video more than audio, and audio more than print.
I agree with the GP that people in a democracy should strive to have a informed opinion, but I think the best way to achieve that is to read books on the issues, not follow the news.
People cannot evaluate the accuracy of what they read either - that is why "Gell-Mann amnesia" is a problem. Again, it is a less prevalent problem with books and more detailed analysis (but it still exists, of course) than with news media.
The sheer complexity of a modern society makes it very hard to be well informed. Most people in the UK do not even understand the taxes they pay. I can guarantee that almost all otherwise well informed and educated people in the UK cannot explain national insurance correctly (the second biggest source of revenue, generating about two third of what income tax does), or how VAT works and what it is imposed on (just behind NI).
Understanding of economics is even worse. Anything niche like competition in software and online services (the sort of thing we often discuss on HN) is non existent. Even issues like education and healthcare that are not niche but are complex are not well understood.
At the end of the day most people vote tribally (i.e. the party they identify with) or emotionally.
But it all comes down to the execution of it. Sweden has a Public Service thats financed by a tax-like-system.
Swedish public service is imho very bad. Its shallow, narrow, angled and generally never (or rarely) leaves you feeling informed. Their debates are laughable, their interviews are short, uninformed (the interviewer is) and is generally closer to gotcha-journalism than whatever a random Youtube-interview is where they get to complete their sentences.
The Swedish PS has an enourmous budget and has very little to show for it. It should be reformed.
> The Swedish PS has an enourmous budget and has very little to show for it. It should be reformed.
Same goes for Germany. It's also a system heavily under critique. There are something like 20 public tv stations and 50 public broadcasts but they all cater to a rather narrow audience of age 50+ people with lots of folk music, old shows and whatnot. Young people are not represented. It's a shame, there could be so much good stuff out there.
Not so narrow if you take into account that median age in Germany is 45.3y old, average age is 49.8y old and you take a look at its population pyramid. Add to that +65 people are probably the biggest consumers of medias because they have more free time.
Yeah this part really sucks, top of the line premium journalism leads to something like the Panama papers... no consequences whatsoever. So we get to know the world is shit, but nothing will be done about it whatsoever.
If there was some renaissance where actual journalism resulted in a series of deeper investigations on perceived jerks' deeper crimes, then maybe it would make a comeback
