2 ms·

Perhaps one of the reasons that a lot of the struggling media outlets are on the progressive end of the spectrum is that they mostly need to be profitable throu

Perhaps one of the reasons that a lot of the struggling media outlets are on the progressive end of the spectrum is that they mostly need to be profitable through advertising whereas the conservative side can be run at a loss while their backers recoup their investments through deregulation and tax cuts. If someone could figure out a similar way to profit from Democratic government, that could solve most of the funding problems for those progressive media outlets.

bkeroack 9y ago
> they mostly need to be profitable through advertising whereas the conservative side can be run at a loss while their backers recoup their investments through deregulation and tax cuts This is insane. Show me one conservative-leaning media startup that was saved (or turned profitable!) through "deregulation and tax cuts" without reliance on other streams of revenue. Unless you somehow mean that a better, faster-growing economy via deregulation and tax cuts results in better business outcomes overall, regardless of political leanings, which I would agree with enthusiastically.
- hirsin 9y ago
  Arms distance. It's not the startup being profitable, it's Breitbart being funded by people who make more money off the influence Breitbart has on national discourse than they spend on Breitbart.
- curun1r 9y ago
  > Show me one conservative-leaning media startup that was saved (or turned profitable!) through "deregulation and tax cuts" without reliance on other streams of revenue How about two: https://franklincenterhq.org https://franklincenterhq.org https://www.watchdog.org https://www.watchdog.org Notice the complete lack of advertising. It's unlikely that either of these two has much of a revenue stream beyond being funded by the Koch brothers. But Koch industries has made billions being one of the largest polluters in the world. Relaxing EPA guidelines on pollution is a huge business for them. So there's no need for either of those two media outlets to ever make a dime on its own, it just has to provide assistance for Republican politicians who are friendly to their environmental agenda.

bkeroack 9y ago

> they mostly need to be profitable through advertising whereas the conservative side can be run at a loss while their backers recoup their investments through deregulation and tax cuts This is insane. Show me one conservative-leaning media startup that was saved (or turned profitable!) through "deregulation and tax cuts" without reliance on other streams of revenue. Unless you somehow mean that a better, faster-growing economy via deregulation and tax cuts results in better business outcomes overall, regardless of political leanings, which I would agree with enthusiastically.

hirsin 9y ago
Arms distance. It's not the startup being profitable, it's Breitbart being funded by people who make more money off the influence Breitbart has on national discourse than they spend on Breitbart.
curun1r 9y ago
> Show me one conservative-leaning media startup that was saved (or turned profitable!) through "deregulation and tax cuts" without reliance on other streams of revenue How about two: https://franklincenterhq.org https://franklincenterhq.org https://www.watchdog.org https://www.watchdog.org Notice the complete lack of advertising. It's unlikely that either of these two has much of a revenue stream beyond being funded by the Koch brothers. But Koch industries has made billions being one of the largest polluters in the world. Relaxing EPA guidelines on pollution is a huge business for them. So there's no need for either of those two media outlets to ever make a dime on its own, it just has to provide assistance for Republican politicians who are friendly to their environmental agenda.