No you expect ideology. You don't accept people doing their jobs professionally even if it counters to their ideology. That's a fail.
You said "Ideally, no ads at all, so there is no conflict of interest for the publication when choosing topics and investigating." But there is one, and it's subscriber based. You accept bias as long as it is subscriber based.
Your idea is flawed and your question is flawed.
If anything having both revenue streams is more likely to help then only one or the other. The publication doesn't have to rely only on advertising because they have subscribers. This is not an option your question asked. You question is either or which is flawed.
There are publications that have been critical of their advertisers, this is not a new concept. Multiple revenue streams help with this.
That is a more useful answer than your previous replies. Thank you.
You have not convinced me that ideology is something that journalism can escape. At the most fundamental level, some journalists consider freedom of the press differently than others. Some challenge the government more than others. Choosing to report on child labor is an example of an ideological stance.
Every time The Economist posts a story about the failure of the healthcare system and gun violence in the United States, it is because they have an ideology.
I fully expect every news source to have an ideology and to be honest about it.
