3 ms·
> but for the most part their bills get paid the same way facebook's bills do. Yes, and they have a set of checks and balances to deal with that fact. I'm com
by jnbiche 9y ago
> but for the most part their bills get paid the same way facebook's bills do.
Yes, and they have a set of checks and balances to deal with that fact. I'm completely stumped why you would discount those checks and balances. Media outlets are all biased in different ways, and I share your disdain for some of those biases. That said, if they are a legitimate news outlet, those biases have little to do with their advertisers, so not sure what your point is.
Care to expand on your complaint?
- anonacct37 9y ago> if they are a legitimate news outlet, those biases have little to do with their advertisers I don't believe this to be true. Or at least under that definition I think that there are few if any "legitimate news outlets". I'm not trying to be edgy. I just have zero faith that all of these businesses that make money by advertising have internally created a system of checks and balances such that they write whatever they want even if that will directly lead to layoffs of journalists because they've pissed off advertisers who will no longer fund them. Maybe a simpler analogy is that newspapers are junkies shooting up heroin (advertising dollars) and telling us "don't worry, we got this under control, it won't affect our decisions".