A few thoughts and references.

Hamilton Holt: A 1909 account, "Commercialism and Journalism", describes something of the inverse of our current dilemma: how the press would establish its independence given the tremendous boom in advertising, and advertisers who Had Money and Had an Interest in What Was or Wasn't Published. Holt's account starts with a statistical overview of the previous half-century of the industry and the growing role of advertising (a new phenomenon, at least at that scale, in 1909). It's quite revealing.

https://archive.org/details/commercialismjou00holtuoft

I.F. "Izzy" Stone, speaking in 1974, is commenting at the zenith of the power of major city and national dailies. The Washington Post and The New York Times had just toppled a President of the United States. Stone credits the broad scope (a point Holt had made) of major city papers as giving them a great deal of independence -- local and small-city papers had no such advantages. Advertising remained a huge influence on the press.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qV3gO3zxQ1g

Chomsky, Mander, and Postman: Three among many critics of the modern press, both print and broadcast. If you're not familiar with them, read.

Tronc: I've been spending time in the Chicago area, and have had the experience of reading what's left of the Chicago Tribune. John Oliver's criticisms were very well deserved. We're currently in Sportsball Season, which means that the front page, front section, editorial page, business section (mostly obituaries, with the added bonus of a list of recently dead people on the back pages), real estate, and entertainment sections, as well as the sports section, are covering the Cubs, Bears, Bulls, and/or Blackhawks.

Actual news is limited to a one page "Nation & World" and "News Briefing" page. Columnists largely discuss their gardens.

Every month or two there's a piece of accidental good journalism. Often a historical review (one in particular was the obit of a former Trib reporter).

The Monday paper is little more than a paste-up of solicited filler.

The simple truth is that the Trib doesn't cover news of significanc, covers its own backyard poorly, expresses the schizoid remnants of its Republic Party Paper tradition (though the paper's been notably less straight-ticket of late), and has taken unpardonable positions as regards free speech and the press, most notably its editorial against a pardon for Edward Snowden.

I find far more informative, useful, and relevant content online. Mostly I simply ignore the current news -- I'm poking around the Internet Archive's early 20th century, or 19th or 18th century collections. Or I'm digging into primary sources, largely academic and journal articles or books (and those often via Sci-Hub or LibGen).

I'm also coming to believe strongly that the "news is bad for you" view has strong merits. I'm not completely shut out (and am much less so than the typical person), but I absolutely refuse to let my information sources be ruled by commercial interests, shock and awe, outrage, or irrelevance.

Where the news media have misstepped most severely is in trying to serve entertainment rather than information. This affects not only what's left of newspapers, or magazines (I saw Time Magazine for the first time in years and felt like I'd just run into a friend in the end stages of cancer: gaunt, dull, no substance, and all signs pointing to a rapidly fading life-force): they've gutted themselves of any meaningful content. There are exceptions, including upstart and principled media: The Guardian does well. The Economist and Financial Times are generally strong. The Wall Street Journal, though cheap and slanted, remains a strikingly better paper than Tronc, er, the Trib. I've been impressed by online ventures, including The Intercept, Pro Publica, and a few others, though the outrage engines, even those nominally from viewpoints I agree with, are tiresome.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-ro...