For the most part, unfortunately, they run unprofitably, and have required therefor the patronage of high net worth individuals to keep them running.

In an ideal world, there would be a requirement for an organization that labels itself as "journalism", "news", or "reporting" to have a measure of financial independence. ...but as it stands, it seems such independent agencies would not be able to financially sustain itself as so much "news" is free online, and people remain unwilling to pay for less-biased sources of information.

We have entered the disinformation age. If you are not paying for news, you are the product, not the consumer.

Pretty sure titles like "Pewdiepie is a Nazi" is not considered good reliable content.

Good content, sure.

Reliable, not so much.

> Publishing good reliable content.

What is your definition of “good reliable content”?

I find it funny you cite left leaning sources that masquerade as objective. NYT hiring Sarah Jeong and claiming white privilege is rampant. Give me a break.

(This is an unpopular opinion, particularly on HN.)