Really stop and think, what would these families and corporations prefer? A bunch of pissed of people in the streets mad at their governments and policies? Or a bunch of people reading a news article that says your concerns are 'nonsense'?
And I made no mention of political orientation, please stop with the tired idea that this is a conservative/liberal issue. I have more in common with a redneck in Alabama than I do with Jeff Bezos. Stop falling for their traps.
In the cases of these newspapers, it's clear they're used to hold political power and push narratives. The willingness for that billionaire to take on CNN for $1 despite it losing money shows that I think.
And I would say, they could easily be owned by readers in a consumer-coop model. These work for many other industries, I don't see why it wouldn't work for newspapers.
I think most importantly, a lot of newspapers now a days are money losing businesses. But they provide political influence (local in most cases) so they're still useful for rich people to push certain agendas whereas genuine competitors just don't have the resources to maintain them.
A coop newspaper would be cool, although if it is viable why isn't it already happening? Or is it?
Anytime rich people say something is bad, one can generally assume that by bad they mean only for them and their entrenched wealth and power and so therefore is good for the rest of us.