The for-profit news model is a problem. They don't care about truth or informing people or the state of the country they just care about money. Or at least the bosses of the journalists do. Got to have a horse race so if an evil scumbag is down then you better be hard on the other team because "fairness" of course. It could lead to cultural suicide.
I think that most American journalists are unbelievably hardworking at a mostly thankless job, but a combination of perverse business and social incentives warp perceptions and practices as they move up the ladder. Relationships, access, the growing power of partisan media and the ability of politicians to bypass traditional media, and the insulated and competitive nature of campaign reporting turn it into more of an insiders game, like a Hollywood trade publication or sports beat, than public service. That tensions sells far better, too.
Do you know when networks were obligated to provide news as a public service/condition of license changed into news as a profit center? Or was the imagined past not so rosy either? I really do think some new kind of "Fairness Doctrine" must be instituted because orgs like Fox News are almost a form of societal brain cancer. Maybe the internet has rendered that futile if not impossible.
News operations were historically prestigious loss leaders — they lost money for their networks but brought so many eyeballs that they’d provide great lead-ins to prime time programming, allowing for greater ad sales in the more lucrative time slots. The better the news operation, the wealthier the viewers, which is what advertisers covet.
The fact that there were only three networks meant that there were so many viewers up for grabs that they couldn’t go too far right or left and alienate large swaths of the audience. As the number of channels exponentially increased with cable, it fractured the market and made appealing to and owning smaller factions of an audience a smarter idea.
Even if only 1/3 of viewers were conservative, Roger Ailes realized that he could dominate that 1/3 and let CNN, MSNBC, the big three networks, PBS, etc compete for the rest.
Now things are so fractured and local news is so dead that DC reporters are writing often for the inside audience that pays a lot of money to attend and sponsor events, etc.
MSM can't be trusted with news. They can barely get the social news right. We certainly can't depend on them to provide the information we MUST have to maintain our democracy! There HAS to be a way to license actual news purveyors, and set them apart from the pure "entertainment" bs of Faux Non-news.
We have a lot to fix after we win the White House, Congress and the Senate this fall, and this is a crucial one. The value of a FREE press cannot be underestimated, and since our democracy's survival depends on the dissemination of accurate information, we need to address it, immediately.
No one is clamoring for detailed policy papers after 1 month. Only David Brooks and other journalists who want to interview her. It is total BS . Thanks for your opinion.
...each reader now consider
✉️💌💬☎️📧📧📫📩✉️💬📧
☝️☝️‼️‼️☝️☝️☝️‼️☝️☝️☝️
send jordan's artillery to corp media ••esp nyt••cnn••local
every day of the week ...
until they get it right 💫
...now: each reader of this/ viewer of corporate media / esp nyt subscribers 👇
📧☎️💬📩📫💌📧📧📧📧💬
☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️
post this article to each outlet
>> d a i l y << • every day •
The for-profit news model is a problem. They don't care about truth or informing people or the state of the country they just care about money. Or at least the bosses of the journalists do. Got to have a horse race so if an evil scumbag is down then you better be hard on the other team because "fairness" of course. It could lead to cultural suicide.
I think that most American journalists are unbelievably hardworking at a mostly thankless job, but a combination of perverse business and social incentives warp perceptions and practices as they move up the ladder. Relationships, access, the growing power of partisan media and the ability of politicians to bypass traditional media, and the insulated and competitive nature of campaign reporting turn it into more of an insiders game, like a Hollywood trade publication or sports beat, than public service. That tensions sells far better, too.
Do you know when networks were obligated to provide news as a public service/condition of license changed into news as a profit center? Or was the imagined past not so rosy either? I really do think some new kind of "Fairness Doctrine" must be instituted because orgs like Fox News are almost a form of societal brain cancer. Maybe the internet has rendered that futile if not impossible.
News operations were historically prestigious loss leaders — they lost money for their networks but brought so many eyeballs that they’d provide great lead-ins to prime time programming, allowing for greater ad sales in the more lucrative time slots. The better the news operation, the wealthier the viewers, which is what advertisers covet.
The fact that there were only three networks meant that there were so many viewers up for grabs that they couldn’t go too far right or left and alienate large swaths of the audience. As the number of channels exponentially increased with cable, it fractured the market and made appealing to and owning smaller factions of an audience a smarter idea.
Even if only 1/3 of viewers were conservative, Roger Ailes realized that he could dominate that 1/3 and let CNN, MSNBC, the big three networks, PBS, etc compete for the rest.
Now things are so fractured and local news is so dead that DC reporters are writing often for the inside audience that pays a lot of money to attend and sponsor events, etc.
MSM can't be trusted with news. They can barely get the social news right. We certainly can't depend on them to provide the information we MUST have to maintain our democracy! There HAS to be a way to license actual news purveyors, and set them apart from the pure "entertainment" bs of Faux Non-news.
We have a lot to fix after we win the White House, Congress and the Senate this fall, and this is a crucial one. The value of a FREE press cannot be underestimated, and since our democracy's survival depends on the dissemination of accurate information, we need to address it, immediately.
This is really insightful, and I think it’s a very interesting point
No one is clamoring for detailed policy papers after 1 month. Only David Brooks and other journalists who want to interview her. It is total BS . Thanks for your opinion.
The MSM narrative is heavy on deceit as it has ever been.