5 ms·
I'm not sure you understand. It's not about what journalists genuinely believe, it's about what narrative creates the most polarizing, emotional and long-stand
by Danihan 9y ago
I'm not sure you understand. It's not about what journalists genuinely believe, it's about what narrative creates the most polarizing, emotional and long-standing controversy, because those traits result in eyeballs and therefore revenue.
That's why Trayvon Martin was such a massive story... two polarized, completely entrenched sides battling at it endlessly. Truth didn't matter, the hyped up emotionalism of it all was a windfall for the media.
- matt4077 9y agoI'm not sure you understand: the Times didn't publish those stories, precisely because they didn't feel they had proof, and in doing so they were willing to miss out on the eyeballs and revenue that would have come with publishing.