That&#x27;s it, but I&#x27;m out of ideas how to do it. Charities are not good enough; you need to disconnect the incentives for writing the stories from how readers like them. News, after all, is about observable reality so it shouldn&#x27;t be affected by the moods of the society.<p>Yeah, BBC may be a step in the right direction. The grant-funding organization idea is interesting. Or maybe the reverse? Let&#x27;s make news just like a public agency - collecting data (stories) and releasing it as a public service, just like NOAA does with weather? But then again, we&#x27;d need a way to incentivize the reporters to dig into government&#x2F;whoever-funds-this problems and make sure that such reports get published as well.<p>It&#x27;s a hard problem, and alternative solutions won&#x27;t be perfect either, but the current situation of constant outrage-fueled brainwashing is taking a heavy toll on the ability of our society to reason, so IMO it&#x27;s worth considering a change.<p>BTW. I think that a regular change of such systems may not be a bad idea. The problem with media, or with justice, or democracy, or even with markets start when they&#x27;re getting <i>too</i> optimized, and thus start to deviate from the original purpose. So i.e. if you look at the arguments about <i>why</i> democracy is awesome and all, they all seem to make sense... if applied to the system from 100 years ago, back when it wasn&#x27;t so thoroughly gamed. We want our systems efficient, but not <i>too</i> efficient, because they&#x27;re not <i>perfectly</i> aligned with our shared values.