Hacker News Reader

1. For most people money is a thing that they gain by literally converting their lifespan into it via work. So if we take it from people it should be for things of importance

2. There is a finite amount of money and there are things more important than tv. Maybe curing cancer? Subsidizing childcare? Dunno two easy ones off the top of my head

View on HN

>it should be for things of importance

Local news is important.

>things more important than tv. Maybe curing cancer?

This is a fallacy. The people making local news shows aren't the same people that are curing cancer, and the people curing cancer aren't going to stop to go make local news shows because of this.

We’re not talking about the people. We’re talking about where tax dollars get directed.

Many people will know quite personally the struggle you describe, but I think there's an implicit assumption in it that reliable news sources will always remain available with or without direct monetary support from the population. I'll admit that "reliable" is a loaded word here, but what happens if the only news available becomes a hyper sensationalized engagement at all costs over facts dumpster fire? Freedom of the press was an important enough idea to make it into the US first amendment, but just like freedom the press isn't free.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com