What is your worry about removing the most significant conflict of interest from a news organization exactly? It seems like it might cause other issues but I can't think of a reasonable reason that it would do anything but reduce the amount of bias present.
And really? The Daily Fucking Mail? First of all: middle ground fallacy. Second: What sane person takes the Daily Mail's position on anything as a serious data point about where on the political spectrum a hypothetical unbiased news source would lie.
I'm finding it difficult not to stereotype you as an american who feels the middle ground between the Democrats and Republicans is a true middle ground (and that reality therefore has a left wing bias).
If you think the Guardian's not as far left as the Mail's far right you're uninformed and need to read more. I suggest political theory and try reading all the different broadsheets on the same day a few days to understand political bias in each one.
Finally, go talk to some real people. If you think people don't have similar political beliefs as the daily mail you're utterly deluding yourself.
I suggest people not in your age group. I have found most Daily Mail readers in the 40-60s groups. It seems you have surrounded yourself with like-minded people, nothing wrong with that, but now believe everyone thinks like you do.
The 'middle' that you claim to be inhabiting is probably actually far left. There's a lot further right you can go than the Mail (like fascism for example). Liberals do seem to make this mistake rather a lot, thinking they're the moderate centre, when they're anything but.
I have no idea what you were getting at in your first sentence, sorry.
The first sentence was asking why you think non-commercial news sources would be bad for journalism.
As to the rest, I think a lot of our disagreement comes from how we define the middle and whether "moderate centre" can exist on it's own or only relative to the local politics. There is a difference between philosophical differences in political views about subjective or unknown issues and actual bias, where ideological commitments result in irrational positions on subjects with real evidence (roughly: denial of evolution/climate change is most often political bias, differences in taxation policy or social safety net policy are most often philosophical differences)
Also, I don't think I'm moderate centre or middle at all, nor am I just left. My worldview is based on science, rationality and skepticism so on the scale you are using I swing from centre to extreme left to fairly right depending on the issue. Perhaps that's why I consider the single axis political spectrum to be a framework for the ignorant and only useful to those writing the talking points. I certainly consider The Economist to be more similar to The Guardian than to the Daily Mail, which probably sounds crazy to you.
I understand you could read the different broadsheets to understand how their politics differ but how do you translate that to bias? How have you decided where the middle is other than averaging the broadsheets? That's textbook middle ground fallacy. It's completely open to manipulation by shifts in the Overton window.
And really? The Daily Fucking Mail? First of all: middle ground fallacy. Second: What sane person takes the Daily Mail's position on anything as a serious data point about where on the political spectrum a hypothetical unbiased news source would lie.
I'm finding it difficult not to stereotype you as an american who feels the middle ground between the Democrats and Republicans is a true middle ground (and that reality therefore has a left wing bias).