4 ms·
I think the big papers (New York Times, Washington Post) have always been the voice of the establishment. I remember reading their editorials broadly condemning
by the_rosentotter 8y ago
I think the big papers (New York Times, Washington Post) have always been the voice of the establishment. I remember reading their editorials broadly condemning the labor movement while it was fighting for basic rights (and being slaughtered by public and privatized law enforcement) in the middle of the 19th century. Perhaps at times more humanist than others, but nevertheless.
I also think it is really obvious that it would be this way. There is hardly any money in selling newspapers, even well before the internet completely obliterated that business. But shaping public opinion? That is valuable beyond measure, for the right (moneyed) interest groups.
- hopler 8y agoHow is the new york times staff or owners profiting from supporting those moneyed interests?
- cwkoss 8y agoAd buys.
- radicaldreamer 8y agoAnd access.
- fumar 8y agoTargeted ad buys to the highest bidder.
- sDlEzAtyoNAz 8y agoBy having a financial stake in things other than the paper.
- the_rosentotter 8y agoI don't know that the editors and writers profit directly, beyond their salaries. More like the companies are run at a loss in order to control the conversation. Of course seats are filled with people that push the line the owners prefer.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- fmajid 8y agoThe owners like to think of themselves as the decision-making elite of the country, and the White House flatters that delusion by giving them illusion of being consulted. This creates sympathy for the WH's views at the top of the NYT, and that attitude percolates implicitly to the editors.
- pm90 8y agoWashington Post seems to be a lot better about being a neutral outlet with quality journalism. Although... being owned by Bezos makes me wonder how long they can remain that way.
- acct1771 8y ago$600m for AWS.