4 ms·

"The offering also includes “neutrality targeting”: that is, isolating upsetting stories that could decrease receptivity to ad messages — placements to be avoid

"The offering also includes “neutrality targeting”: that is, isolating upsetting stories that could decrease receptivity to ad messages — placements to be avoided." In a news environment driven by ad revenues, expect the news to avoid hard hitting stories that make you feel bad. Shame and anger are emotions that cause change -- they don't sell consumer products well. Chipper stories are the order of the day, never mind the complete capture of the information system by corporations, government elites, and the rich generally.

matt4077 8y ago
You should maybe coordinate with the other popular conspiracy theory, namely that „the media“ is driving outrage because it sells so well.
- jammygit 8y ago
  Can you call it a conspiracy? Its more of a temptation combined with financial risks for not doing it
- coldtea 8y ago
  Or the naive, starry eyed, theory (only upper middle class Americans could ever be sold) that there are no conspiracies. In other words, that whenever big private interests have a chance to make more profit by collusion, alignment, and covert action, they never do...
tzs 8y ago
News environments have been driven by ad revenue for over a century. Serious newspapers address this by a Chinese wall between editorial and advertising departments [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall#Journalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall#Journalism
- coldtea 8y ago
  And everybody who has worked in/around journalism and advertising knows that this "chinese wall" was already quite BS in the 80s, and is very much so now (and getting worse), even in the most "serious" of newspapers...
soared 8y ago
Your idea that they'll avoid articles that make you feel bad is incorrect. > placements to be avoided Doesn't mean they won't have advertising on them, just that it will be slightly cheaper. Everyone wants to advertise in the NYT but it costs too much. If I get my ad there, but slightly cheaper, I absolutely would.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >Doesn't mean they won't have advertising on them, just that it will be slightly cheaper. That's an incentive to put out less of them, if I ever show one... Especially if "everyone wants to advertise in the NYT", which means they have all the headroom to push more expensive-ads-yielding ones... What started as a counter-argument to the grandparent, actually made their point for them...
furyofantares 8y ago
> Shame and anger are emotions that cause change -- they don't sell consumer products well. I don’t know, news has been ad driven for a long time and is notoriously negative. I know I live a comfy life but the disconnect between life and news is staggering; consuming news seems to me to be horrible shit nearly 24/7, almost all of which is completely absent in my day-to-day life. And yet almost everyone I know — comfy people like myself — consumes tons of news. Could be that advertising does better per-reader on positive stories, but doesn’t bring readers back as well as frightening news.

matt4077 8y ago

You should maybe coordinate with the other popular conspiracy theory, namely that „the media“ is driving outrage because it sells so well.

jammygit 8y ago
Can you call it a conspiracy? Its more of a temptation combined with financial risks for not doing it
coldtea 8y ago
Or the naive, starry eyed, theory (only upper middle class Americans could ever be sold) that there are no conspiracies. In other words, that whenever big private interests have a chance to make more profit by collusion, alignment, and covert action, they never do...

tzs 8y ago

News environments have been driven by ad revenue for over a century. Serious newspapers address this by a Chinese wall between editorial and advertising departments [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall#Journalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall#Journalism

coldtea 8y ago
And everybody who has worked in/around journalism and advertising knows that this "chinese wall" was already quite BS in the 80s, and is very much so now (and getting worse), even in the most "serious" of newspapers...

soared 8y ago

Your idea that they'll avoid articles that make you feel bad is incorrect. > placements to be avoided Doesn't mean they won't have advertising on them, just that it will be slightly cheaper. Everyone wants to advertise in the NYT but it costs too much. If I get my ad there, but slightly cheaper, I absolutely would.

coldtea 8y ago
>Doesn't mean they won't have advertising on them, just that it will be slightly cheaper. That's an incentive to put out less of them, if I ever show one... Especially if "everyone wants to advertise in the NYT", which means they have all the headroom to push more expensive-ads-yielding ones... What started as a counter-argument to the grandparent, actually made their point for them...

furyofantares 8y ago

> Shame and anger are emotions that cause change -- they don't sell consumer products well. I don’t know, news has been ad driven for a long time and is notoriously negative. I know I live a comfy life but the disconnect between life and news is staggering; consuming news seems to me to be horrible shit nearly 24/7, almost all of which is completely absent in my day-to-day life. And yet almost everyone I know — comfy people like myself — consumes tons of news. Could be that advertising does better per-reader on positive stories, but doesn’t bring readers back as well as frightening news.