3 ms·

> Now imagine how much more they'd make if they actually published quality material instead of culture war clickbait and freshman opinion pieces. Won't this cr

> Now imagine how much more they'd make if they actually published quality material instead of culture war clickbait and freshman opinion pieces. Won't this crowdfunding potentially polarize journalism even more? In general, individuals are more passionate about their political opinions and social causes than for neutral, high-quality journalism which sometimes confirms, sometimes rejects their world-views. You also invite strong pressures from well funded special interest groups, seeking to borrow on the credibility of journalism to promote a particular world view. At the very least, it's much harder to get businesses to openly profess a particular political view. Often those which do face huge backlash and more ill-will towards their brands than the good-will they're trying to foster with ads.

standupstandup 9y ago
Yes. That's probably why the Guardian feels so much more extreme and polarised than it used to. I thought a lot of it was due to Rusbridger leaving, but I guess the switch to begging for donations is a contributor too. Subscribers have made a conscious choice to pay for a long term stream of news because they want a service they can get only by paying. Donators get it for free so will only donate if it pushes their emotional buttons, it's not a trade.
tsbertalan 9y ago
I don't understand. What you call "crowdfunding" I'd just call "subscription", which is how all journalism was paid for until fairly recently. You're really arguing that openly corporate-funded "journalism" would be superior, and have a lesser tendency to promote a particular angle, like, say, the capitalism-cures-all-ills mantra?
lostphilosopher 9y ago
It's "no win" right? Whomever the news source is financially dependent on they at the mercy of that funding source's interest in neutrality. And since journalism costs money it will always be financially dependent on someone/thing. While a business may be wary about weighing in on a politically charged issue just to attempt to foster supporters good will (for exactly the reasons you discuss) the calculus is different when that issue directly affects their business. I'm not concerned about advertisers biasing news about unrelated hot button political issues. I'm worried about advertisers biasing news in favor of their business interests: corporate tax rates, trade agreements, consumer and environmental safety concerns - etc. Things that could be good for making the business money, but not good for people. I don't have those same concerns about individuals, but I'd have the (similar) concerns you bring up. The question then is what bias are you more comfortable with?

standupstandup 9y ago

Yes. That's probably why the Guardian feels so much more extreme and polarised than it used to. I thought a lot of it was due to Rusbridger leaving, but I guess the switch to begging for donations is a contributor too. Subscribers have made a conscious choice to pay for a long term stream of news because they want a service they can get only by paying. Donators get it for free so will only donate if it pushes their emotional buttons, it's not a trade.

tsbertalan 9y ago

I don't understand. What you call "crowdfunding" I'd just call "subscription", which is how all journalism was paid for until fairly recently. You're really arguing that openly corporate-funded "journalism" would be superior, and have a lesser tendency to promote a particular angle, like, say, the capitalism-cures-all-ills mantra?

lostphilosopher 9y ago

It's "no win" right? Whomever the news source is financially dependent on they at the mercy of that funding source's interest in neutrality. And since journalism costs money it will always be financially dependent on someone/thing. While a business may be wary about weighing in on a politically charged issue just to attempt to foster supporters good will (for exactly the reasons you discuss) the calculus is different when that issue directly affects their business. I'm not concerned about advertisers biasing news about unrelated hot button political issues. I'm worried about advertisers biasing news in favor of their business interests: corporate tax rates, trade agreements, consumer and environmental safety concerns - etc. Things that could be good for making the business money, but not good for people. I don't have those same concerns about individuals, but I'd have the (similar) concerns you bring up. The question then is what bias are you more comfortable with?