4 ms·

Is no one else going to say this? Fine. Most so-called "journalism" is in fact a rush to capture as many eyeballs as possible for the purpose of displaying adv

Is no one else going to say this? Fine. Most so-called "journalism" is in fact a rush to capture as many eyeballs as possible for the purpose of displaying advertising. These patterns make a lot more sense once viewed through the adtech lens: news outlets aren't publishers or providers of information; they're sellers of an audience to advertisers. This is their primary mission, fueled in turn by the desire to self-perpetuate.

frockington 8y ago
I'd agree and the easiest examples are in political coverage. By getting people fired up and angry they can ensure they stay tuned through the next day and keep a captive (and angry) audience
Zanta 8y ago
How do state broadcasters fit into this theory? The CBC and BBC produce content in a similar style to the for-profit broadcasters (better, but definitely similar in more ways than its not), but without the advertising mission.
- Xeoncross 8y ago
  State broadcasters have a larger surface area offering a more political goal. After all, it's state-run. Most people can see this effect more clearly on the state-run news outside their own country.
  - lostlogin 8y ago
    Not always - the BBC was mentioned above and they are far less politicised than many of the other U.K. news outlets. It is argued that any bias comes from the demographic of those who want to work there rather than political pressure from above. A good local news source that is government funded, Radio New Zealand, would fall into the same catagory in my opinion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
aiven 8y ago
it is true, but is it bad that jornalists are so solective? do you want news network which will cover news on all continents, to report all kind of disaster "yesterday from food shortage died 10k people in X, today is also 5k died". Such network will be flooded with boring, unrelevant (for most) information. And it will be hard to find timeworthy article amongst all the trash (and it's your time).

frockington 8y ago

I'd agree and the easiest examples are in political coverage. By getting people fired up and angry they can ensure they stay tuned through the next day and keep a captive (and angry) audience

Zanta 8y ago

How do state broadcasters fit into this theory? The CBC and BBC produce content in a similar style to the for-profit broadcasters (better, but definitely similar in more ways than its not), but without the advertising mission.

Xeoncross 8y ago
State broadcasters have a larger surface area offering a more political goal. After all, it's state-run. Most people can see this effect more clearly on the state-run news outside their own country.
- lostlogin 8y ago
  Not always - the BBC was mentioned above and they are far less politicised than many of the other U.K. news outlets. It is argued that any bias comes from the demographic of those who want to work there rather than political pressure from above. A good local news source that is government funded, Radio New Zealand, would fall into the same catagory in my opinion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC

aiven 8y ago

it is true, but is it bad that jornalists are so solective? do you want news network which will cover news on all continents, to report all kind of disaster "yesterday from food shortage died 10k people in X, today is also 5k died". Such network will be flooded with boring, unrelevant (for most) information. And it will be hard to find timeworthy article amongst all the trash (and it's your time).