Important to keep in mind that decent journalism does not fall from trees. The “greedy and trackers-filled” sites are often just ordinary newspapers and magazines that had their business model turned upside down by the internet. They only have so many options left when big tech has cornered the online ad market using spyware and when most people choose not to subscribe on grounds of “bias” or whatever - very often the same people who have no problem making regular payments to genuinely greedy corporations like Amazon or Netflix.

But I do agree that we should pay more attention how news sources are funded.

The profit-nonprofit metric is pretty good but not perfect. Firstly because journalism is de-facto always nonprofit. That’s why even good newspapers are often beholden to billionaires. Even thousands of subscribers can’t pay for a product of the quality of the Washington Post (though it’s getting close). There are zero evil capitalists skimming off the profits of journalism, because journalism is just not a profitable business.

Secondly because even audience-funded news sources can be biased, usually in line with their audience’s prejudices (Unherd and The Free Press spring to mind). Any NGO or cooperative can write an ostensibly fact-based article but that doesn’t make it a credible source. This is what journalistic ethics are supposed to cover, similar to academic ethics work if you’re writing, say, history.

I think the basic test should be: Does this news source have multiple lines of accountability?

• wholly owned by a single multinational corp? - avoid
• funded entirely by a non-profit foundation - check the owner’s mission
• a cooperative of accredited journalists (a few exist) - fine but beware individual biases
• has lots of subscribers and also ads - should be OK but check specifics
• state broadcaster - fine when accountable to independent board (BBC, CBC), else beware