The hollowing out of the readership by ideologically partisan staff is what led to publications becoming overly dependent on the subsidy of wealthy owners, rather than a wider pool of paid subscribers.

It is a bit ironic that an article criticizing NPR is hosted on TheFP. Especially considering its owner got promoted to the head of a major mainstream news network by one of the richest people in the world.

Then it's irony all the way down. Or just admitting that news takes money.

News can take money while also having a reputation. You won't catch me dead cross-referencing AP with Fox editorials or tabloid slop from The Sun.

Never thought of it this way before. Maybe, but are there papers that remained balanced without losing too many subscribers? Tech age has been overall tough for them.

Forgot to add that people more often like to read things they agree with, especially if we're talking about paying subscribers.