I didn't take disinformation as a result of news companies going broke.

I don't think it's the only reason, but it's one of the reasons.

Part of the disinformation ecosystem is randos pumping out content so they can get ad clicks. Social media rewards that (etc), but the original sin is mixing timely investigative journalism with every other kind of free content online. It cheapens journalism.

The distrust in "old authorities" like big newspaper or governments is, in my opinion, a long-term result of the broken promisses of the hegemony they are, or seem to be, part of.

You're right. And it's somewhat deserved. But by training us that well-researched reporting should be free, those old authorities basically poisoned the well. We generally expect news to be free now. Which makes it really hard for new outfits to get started.

The concept "people have to have to pay for quality information" doesn't sit right with me. Relevant info should be available for everyone!

Journalists need to eat. In the 1980s it seemed like almost every middle class household received a newspaper. I wasn't able to find stats, but I suspect that most households found newspapers useful and could pay for them.

If we return to a model where news isn't free, but it's really cheap, I think we'd be okay.

And trustworthy news orgs should be funded pubicly.

I'm all for public funding, but NPR didn't break Watergate, nor did CBC break the SNC-Lavelin affair. Western democracies co-evolved with a relatively adversarial private press.

We need ways for a private press to continue as we move further online. Non-profit models seem to work (at least for the Guardian), as do membership models (at least for Canadaland).