Advertisements presuppose the existence of competition. Recently, there have been examples of unsubsidized sources of renewable energy underpricing natural gas. These sudden and unexpected harbingers of the obsolescence of natural gas might be the motivation for this elaborate advertisement. Also, natural gas is a fossil fuel that produces greenhouse gases, and is thus vulnerable to public scorn.
It is strange to find an oil company's advertisement disguised as an article in the otherwise liberal New York Times. Perhaps advertising in a conservative venue like the WSJ would be redundant, like preaching to the converted. In any case, beggars can't be choosers in the contemporary world of journalism, and news outlets like the NYT need to sell advertising in order to survive. And liberals always were capitalists.
What would state-funded journalism -- without advertisements -- look like?
The BBC offers a glimpse. (The UK subsidizes the BBC with fees. Anyone with a color television in the UK has to pay a $200 fee to the British government.)
From the BBC News service....
A very long article from last week on what the "soul" is conceived to be in the Western intellectual and religious traditions, and what the implications of Artificial Intelligence are for those traditions:
A long article on the scientific validity of the idea of parallel universes:
On why there could be many identical copies of you in these parallel universes:
This is elite journalism -- not so much for the financial elite who read newspapers like the WSJ, but for the best-educated members of society.
A pale imitation of this might be found in NPR, the American version of "public" radio (actually, public-private) that relies on donations.
An even paler imitation of the BBC would be the PBS, which historically has consisted primarily of programming from ... the BBC.
In Europe, substantial public expenditures seem aimed at a segment of the middle class that is very, very educated.
The US has neither this kind of generous public funding for such things nor an over-educated middle class.
The ultimate policy objective in the US across the political spectrum -- from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump, and all points between -- is to give people more and MORE STUFF. Not more education, but MORE MATERIAL STUFF. In fact, it is argued that if everyone goes to college, then they can later afford to buy MORE STUFF. (University administrators then use this as an excuse to raise tuition, which burdens students with debt.) MORE STUFF is the ultimate goal and justification of public policy in the US.
America was always like this. The original 13 British colonies were famous for their big carriages pulled by big horses, big houses and big meals with big portions. This love of material bigness is the imprint of the working class on American culture. The US never really had an aristocracy, but neither did it have poor immigrants because they could not afford the journey (the US was the "land of opportunity", and not so much a "refuge"). The characteristics that distinguish American from European life therefore derive largely from the working class and its material aspirations. (In contrast, the European middle classes have an obsession with quality, not with sheer quantity.)
It is often observed that almost all Americans -- from the "upper-middle class" who comprise the top 20% of income earners down to the working class -- have a middle-class identity. Yet if Americans are (in)famous for their materialism, it is because the character of the US has been much more influenced by the working-class.
For this reason, it seems inconceivable that there will ever be government subsidies in the US for news services.
Although this might not bother the ordinary American, something does seem lacking for those who are educated and attentive. For example, the BBC seems to have more in-depth coverage than does the elite media in the US regarding North Korea and its development of nuclear weapons.
A very thorough profile of the North Korean leader:
Experts on North Korea are puzzled why North Korea even wants nuclear weapons. They note that the regime always links the possession of nuclear weapons to "reunification". The implication is that the North wants to utilize its nuclear arsenal to conquer the South. The experts are quick to point out that the notion of a North Korean victory over the South is absurd.
What North Korea means by "reunification", however, might have changed over the years, and may now have little to do with conquest. The model that the North might have in mind might be based on the relationship between China and Taiwan, two countries that have economically integrated while maintaining separate political systems. North Korea now has a market economy because its planned economy collapsed along with the Soviet Union; this market economy would facilitate economic integration with the South. Because the North now has a massive but untrustworthy military and an embittered populace, a nuclear deterrent would be the only guarantee of the regime's survival in the course of economic integration. (In fact, the nuclear arsenal could be used against the North's own population, much as the South African government planned during the apartheid era.)
More evidence for this understanding of North Korea:
One cannot get this kind of insight from American news media.
