While publicly funded news works well in some places, there is an inherent conflict of interest when the publicly funded journalists start investigating the source of their funding.
This is especially the case when a proto-strongman is attempting to consolidate power.
Publicly funded journalism cannot be the only way it works.
(I say this as a left-learning person generally supportive of public funding).
(Also, "entertainment" vs "an essential service" is a false dichotomy)
The solution (albeit not a perfect one) is to make the decision on funding independent from political parties. For example, have a comittee (or jury) that is recruited randomly from the general public and decides on the plan for next year's budget.
Or you can just put your own money towards media outlets that you think are providing more truthful content. Why would I want to give my money to someone else to decide what they feel is objective news? No thanks.
What you want is control over what other people think.
We have government funded police and judiciary sending government officials to jail when they break the law, I think we could set up an independent journalism arm as well to publicly report what is going on in the halls of parliament.
This is especially the case when a proto-strongman is attempting to consolidate power.
Publicly funded journalism cannot be the only way it works.
(I say this as a left-learning person generally supportive of public funding).
(Also, "entertainment" vs "an essential service" is a false dichotomy)