6 ms·

This might be bad if the point of owning a newspaper was to make money.

by ashconnor 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
potro 2y ago
This is likely bad even if the point was other then making money.
Sabinus 2y ago
The less prestige and readership the paper has, the less influence it has.
- chucke1992 2y ago
  traditional media is already losing the influence to be honest. Even big networks like CNN or Fox News are basically dying. In the era of tiktok, twitter, podcasters and other services - traditional media is just too boring source of news. I would say that even the traditional search will die sooner or later.
  - wkat4242 2y ago
    I think CNN and especially Fox are already way too sensationalist. I prefer a good writeup like the guardian does. Not every fart needs to be "BREAKING NEWS". I'm sure some people crave the hollow mindless screaming of random influencers but there's still mindful people out there.
    - chucke1992 2y ago
      they are sensationalist because they are trying to imitate the discourse like on TikTok or Twitter - some short sentence that makes people pay attention while reading the headline. It is like "click on us!!!" And it is getting worse because media has to compete with online media. > I'm sure some people crave the hollow mindless screaming of random influencers but there's still mindful people out there. For sure, there are event podcasts with cool and calm discourse too. There are options.
- Freestyler_3 2y ago
  I think having a balanced news nowadays is more prestige than a paper that chases a one sided view on politics.
  - 535188B17C93743 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - username135 2y ago
    There was a time that all news was required to be fair and balanced. See the fairness doctrine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine
    - jfengel 2y ago
      The fairness doctrine only ever applied to broadcast TV and radio. It was considered constitutional on the grounds that these were limited public resources. It never applied to newspapers, cable TV, or web sites, which were far less limited. It was never really the reason that news broadcasts aimed for fairness. They aimed for fairness because they were journalists, and they considered it a point of pride to be accurate and informative. The broadcast networks (including Fox affiliates) still aim for that, despite the end of the fairness doctrine. But their markets have been eaten into by cable networks, some of which were explicitly founded as propaganda machines and discovered that people preferred it as entertainment.
  - Sabinus 2y ago
    That depends on what you mean by 'having a balanced news'. Should reporting present both sides in the same light if the facts support one side more? Does a presidential endorsement from the editorial section of a newspaper corrupt the impartiality of the reporting section of the newspaper?
    - weatherlite 2y ago
      > Does a presidential endorsement from the editorial section of a newspaper corrupt the impartiality of the reporting section of the newspaper? It probably does. If your editor, boss and all your colleagues support candidate X and you come up with a story that hurts candidate X, will you really get to publish it? Will you even try to come up with such a story? I'm not saying it's impossible to get this right, but under the current climate I don't think its possible.
- eddd-ddde 2y ago
  Why does a news paper need influence to being with?
  - timeon 2y ago
    News paper does not need it. But that was response to: > This might be bad if the point of owning a newspaper was to make money. Which implies that owner bought it not to make money but to have influence.
  - vasco 2y ago
    Because otherwise it's just some guy's personal journal.
CharlieDigital 2y ago
I'd guess that the point of owning a newspaper is not "to make money" -- at least not directly.
belter 2y ago
The play is somewhere else: "Bezos faces criticism after executives met with Trump on day of Post’s non-endorsement" - https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/oct/27/bezos-washington-post-non-endorsement-election https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/oct/27/bezos-washingt...
stemlord 2y ago
Apparently the point of electing a president into office is to make money too
- Sabinus 2y ago
  Regrettably, history has shown us there is a section of business owner community that would happily vote in fascists to increase or protect their personal power and profit.
  - ryandvm 2y ago
    I dunno. I suspect you can only watch people vote against their own interests for so many years before you throw in the towel and decide to just support whoever is going to increase your own wealth.
93po 2y ago
Bezos bought WaPo when corporate news was a on a clear deccline, and it's consistently lost money on average. Bezos doesn't care, as you said, and it's not about making money but rather controlling a narrative.
stuaxo 2y ago
Owning media is clearly very profitable for those involved, just not in a direct accounting sense. The savings in tax go into the billions at least.

This might be bad if the point of owning a newspaper was to make money.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

potro 2y ago

This is likely bad even if the point was other then making money.

Sabinus 2y ago

The less prestige and readership the paper has, the less influence it has.

chucke1992 2y ago
traditional media is already losing the influence to be honest. Even big networks like CNN or Fox News are basically dying. In the era of tiktok, twitter, podcasters and other services - traditional media is just too boring source of news. I would say that even the traditional search will die sooner or later.
- wkat4242 2y ago
  I think CNN and especially Fox are already way too sensationalist. I prefer a good writeup like the guardian does. Not every fart needs to be "BREAKING NEWS". I'm sure some people crave the hollow mindless screaming of random influencers but there's still mindful people out there.
  - chucke1992 2y ago
    they are sensationalist because they are trying to imitate the discourse like on TikTok or Twitter - some short sentence that makes people pay attention while reading the headline. It is like "click on us!!!" And it is getting worse because media has to compete with online media. > I'm sure some people crave the hollow mindless screaming of random influencers but there's still mindful people out there. For sure, there are event podcasts with cool and calm discourse too. There are options.
Freestyler_3 2y ago
I think having a balanced news nowadays is more prestige than a paper that chases a one sided view on politics.
- 535188B17C93743 2y ago
  [flagged]
- username135 2y ago
  There was a time that all news was required to be fair and balanced. See the fairness doctrine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine
  - jfengel 2y ago
    The fairness doctrine only ever applied to broadcast TV and radio. It was considered constitutional on the grounds that these were limited public resources. It never applied to newspapers, cable TV, or web sites, which were far less limited. It was never really the reason that news broadcasts aimed for fairness. They aimed for fairness because they were journalists, and they considered it a point of pride to be accurate and informative. The broadcast networks (including Fox affiliates) still aim for that, despite the end of the fairness doctrine. But their markets have been eaten into by cable networks, some of which were explicitly founded as propaganda machines and discovered that people preferred it as entertainment.
- Sabinus 2y ago
  That depends on what you mean by 'having a balanced news'. Should reporting present both sides in the same light if the facts support one side more? Does a presidential endorsement from the editorial section of a newspaper corrupt the impartiality of the reporting section of the newspaper?
  - weatherlite 2y ago
    > Does a presidential endorsement from the editorial section of a newspaper corrupt the impartiality of the reporting section of the newspaper? It probably does. If your editor, boss and all your colleagues support candidate X and you come up with a story that hurts candidate X, will you really get to publish it? Will you even try to come up with such a story? I'm not saying it's impossible to get this right, but under the current climate I don't think its possible.
eddd-ddde 2y ago
Why does a news paper need influence to being with?
- timeon 2y ago
  News paper does not need it. But that was response to: > This might be bad if the point of owning a newspaper was to make money. Which implies that owner bought it not to make money but to have influence.
- vasco 2y ago
  Because otherwise it's just some guy's personal journal.

CharlieDigital 2y ago

I'd guess that the point of owning a newspaper is not "to make money" -- at least not directly.

belter 2y ago

The play is somewhere else: "Bezos faces criticism after executives met with Trump on day of Post’s non-endorsement" - https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/oct/27/bezos-washington-post-non-endorsement-election https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/oct/27/bezos-washingt...

stemlord 2y ago

Apparently the point of electing a president into office is to make money too

Sabinus 2y ago
Regrettably, history has shown us there is a section of business owner community that would happily vote in fascists to increase or protect their personal power and profit.
- ryandvm 2y ago
  I dunno. I suspect you can only watch people vote against their own interests for so many years before you throw in the towel and decide to just support whoever is going to increase your own wealth.

93po 2y ago

Bezos bought WaPo when corporate news was a on a clear deccline, and it's consistently lost money on average. Bezos doesn't care, as you said, and it's not about making money but rather controlling a narrative.

stuaxo 2y ago

Owning media is clearly very profitable for those involved, just not in a direct accounting sense. The savings in tax go into the billions at least.