Maybe it's better to learn to deal with fake news, in this hyperconnected society. The old days of paper news and TV are long gone. Every politician I know has a FB and Twitter accounts from where they emit their bullshit. They make videos and post them online. That's why we don't need press conferences and coverage any more. And news can't be paywalled any more because anyone can write about anything, including rewording articles from other sources.

The problem with FaceBook is that it is built in such a way as to create a separate view into the network for each person. By contrast, on reddit, everyone sees everything and debates anyone in comments, not just their friends. So the bubbling effect is much more pronounced on FB. People form cliques that drink their own kool-aid.

Maybe some basic journalistic notions should be taught in primary school and high school. How to separate BS from news and how to report on events. If we are to be self-styled journalists, then at least we should learn about it.

Exactly, some people here start melting down when a lightly paywalled WSJ link is posted.

I suppose there might be two problems with free news: insufficient funding and strings-attached funding. I'm not sure that free news is worse than news for a fee in these respects.

I get my news from ad-funded, donor-funded and tax-funded sources. None of these is perfect, but is news provided to readers/listeners/viewers for an access-fee better, or does it tell people what they want to hear?

It's also worth considering the respected print publications that get revenue both directly from readers and from advertising. My understanding is that they typically get more revenue from advertising, so are they really better than free news? All the ad-free news I know of is also free-of-charge.