  > You are conflating two things here - business models and sustainable operations.
  > Even NGOs can be said to have "business models"

The narrative force is strong here. I will let you free. A public service doesn't need a business model. They don't do business. Anyone dealing with a budget isn't automatically a business.

The principle of a public service is that it focuses on its service, given its budget constraints. Completely different from a business, they don't have a model in common.

  > Someone needs to pay for this, and ideally it would be a self sustaining manner

Yeag, you end up with a niche. Too small to be relevant to function as the Fourth Estate. These things exist already. Your average citizen isn't going to pay for it. You are basically proposing Fox News, that is the consequence. It is about the whole of society that needs to be informed.

Government funding allows public services to be independent. This is a matter of judicial oversight. "But government bad, market good". It will take a generation of detoxing from the cultural memes and sponsored narratives, to reverse decades of cultural programming.

▲ intended 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not trying to beat you over the head with a dictionary, but I can understand when business models is used in places where it is not strictly accurate. I wouldn't personally say the Army or Government (providers of public goods) have a business model, but in the discussion of new agencies, there is enough overlap and history for the term to still hold its meaning.

Even then, using your definition, does not help us escape the point - there needs to be a source of funds for local news. I am perfectly fine with government money being used to pay for it.

	▲	exceptione 31 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Ok! I want to steer people away from the historic model, because that has been a problem and weak point since its inception. I am happy you are open to that.