> if you take your suggestion to its conclusion, no "philanthropists" would own a media company, so who does that leave?

Everybody else? The problem is that these billionaires have too much power. There are a lot independent journalists. They are constantly attacked and censored by these big media companies. The run hit pieces on independent journalists and label them conspiracy theorists without giving any examples of misinformation.

Another example is how billionaire owned YouTube only considers big billionaire owned media companies as "authoritative sources" and promotes them in the algorithm.

There are many things that are labeled misinformation and get censored when reported by independent journalists. But then all it takes is one corporate media company to claim the same thing and now all the sudden it's okay to say.

In summary, when you ask "who does that leave", it leaves a ton of people which is why billionaires try to attack them.

You're conflating philanthropists and billionaires. The person I was replying to called out philanthropists by name. Unless you don't believe someone can be both a philanthropist and wealthy enough to buy a media company, in which case we simply disagree.