7 ms·

Could you give an example of a "noble media organization" that comes the closest, in your view, to achieving this goal?

nkozyra 7y ago
I don't think any comes that close. Most are stuck in an unfortunate race to the bottom against cheap social/internet/clickbait news and the shackles of archaic old media.
Mediterraneo10 7y ago
The Weather Channel?
- nkozyra 7y ago
  Tongue in cheek, but they have really mastered clickbait
ars 7y ago
Reuters
kristianc 7y ago
The FT
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  I think the FT is biased in favour of free markets and globalisation.
  - kristianc 7y ago
    Most of the economics profession is biased in favour of some regulated form of free markets and globalization. That's a bit like saying scientists are biased in favour of anthropic climate change: it's a rational bias based on 200 years of evidence.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - exolymph 7y ago
      Not every value that people hold is economically reducible.
      - kristianc 7y ago
        In the FT's case, it is. The FT doesn't 'know a lot', it largely reflects the mainstream consensus of the economics literature and think tanks - which are broadly pro market with regulation, in line with much of the economics profession. The FT has come out and said that if most of the economics literature was in favour of Brexit, they would have been too, but it wasn't, so they weren't. There was a lot of concern with Nikkei's investment in the FT that that would no longer be the case and that it would kowtow to it's corporate owners - if proved not to be the case.
    - pytester 7y ago
      >Most of the economics profession is biased in favour of some regulated form of free markets and globalization. >That's a bit like saying scientists are biased in favour of anthropic climate change: it's a rational bias based on 200 years of evidence. The economics profession is biased in favour of that because the think tank money, sourced from corporate wealth, wants that. It's a pretty irrational bias which has led to, among other things, the mainstream of the profession being completely blindsided by the financial crisis (famously called out by the normally apolitical Queen) as well as the meteoric rise of China via highly managed trade (an anti free market policy treated by most economists in the 90s/early 00s as largely self defeating).
    - chrisseaton 7y ago
      Wow that’s nasty - equating me to a climate change denier because I said I thought the FT had a bias in one economic direction.
secabeen 7y ago
AP/Reuters for basic stories. https://www.adfontesmedia.com/ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/
SeanLuke 7y ago
C-SPAN

I don't think any comes that close. Most are stuck in an unfortunate race to the bottom against cheap social/internet/clickbait news and the shackles of archaic old media.

Mediterraneo10 7y ago

The Weather Channel?

nkozyra 7y ago
Tongue in cheek, but they have really mastered clickbait

ars 7y ago

Reuters

kristianc 7y ago

The FT

chrisseaton 7y ago
I think the FT is biased in favour of free markets and globalisation.
- kristianc 7y ago
  Most of the economics profession is biased in favour of some regulated form of free markets and globalization. That's a bit like saying scientists are biased in favour of anthropic climate change: it's a rational bias based on 200 years of evidence.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - exolymph 7y ago
    Not every value that people hold is economically reducible.
    - kristianc 7y ago
      In the FT's case, it is. The FT doesn't 'know a lot', it largely reflects the mainstream consensus of the economics literature and think tanks - which are broadly pro market with regulation, in line with much of the economics profession. The FT has come out and said that if most of the economics literature was in favour of Brexit, they would have been too, but it wasn't, so they weren't. There was a lot of concern with Nikkei's investment in the FT that that would no longer be the case and that it would kowtow to it's corporate owners - if proved not to be the case.
  - pytester 7y ago
    >Most of the economics profession is biased in favour of some regulated form of free markets and globalization. >That's a bit like saying scientists are biased in favour of anthropic climate change: it's a rational bias based on 200 years of evidence. The economics profession is biased in favour of that because the think tank money, sourced from corporate wealth, wants that. It's a pretty irrational bias which has led to, among other things, the mainstream of the profession being completely blindsided by the financial crisis (famously called out by the normally apolitical Queen) as well as the meteoric rise of China via highly managed trade (an anti free market policy treated by most economists in the 90s/early 00s as largely self defeating).
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    Wow that’s nasty - equating me to a climate change denier because I said I thought the FT had a bias in one economic direction.

secabeen 7y ago

AP/Reuters for basic stories. https://www.adfontesmedia.com/ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/

SeanLuke 7y ago

C-SPAN