If as lawyers say that 80% of law is eliminating conflicts then eliminating bribery, which is the most basic conflict of interest should be obvious. But in the US the Supreme Court has tried bribery the heart of the system with its insistence that bribery (money) is speech. Neither business nor public organizations can be run on bribery for long.
With regard to media systems it so easy to get rid of this conflict of interest by taking the most basic step and ensuring that they only take money from their legitimate end users and in rough proportion to their numerical share of the listener or subscribership and probably through a blinded process. This pretty much eliminates the problem of money in politics. Its even better when the subscribership owns or retains formal control over the entity like a mutual. Full employee ownership would be a next best option.
What doesn’t work is what Amazon is for instance started doing with it sponsorship. It was really an idiotic idea. They started taking sponsor money (again the most basic conflict relative to their end user customers) and next their vital or core end user rating systems are suddenly corrupted. There is likely no coincidence there, that is its point, its bribery and censorship, its never about the token purchase of attention which generally theft anyway and never value added. Its the same for Google’s sponsored SEO. Google’s search ought to be re-dubbed “lost” because increasingly its service will exist to misdirect, because its now based on bribery.
If we want our freedom to return and increase we need to refuse to allow our attention and awareness to be prostituted by bribery systems.