3 ms·
Part of the issue is we have a press that isn't concerned with the truth. It's concerned with money. It's corporately owned and commercial focused. It doesn't h
by jrs235 7y ago
Part of the issue is we have a press that isn't concerned with the truth. It's concerned with money. It's corporately owned and commercial focused. It doesn't help that almost all the "local" TV [news] stations, radio stations, and newspapers are owned and controlled by a handful of corporations.
- luckylion 7y agoCertainly, there are many incentives that help break the system, and the corporate media is one of them. I don't see a good alternative though, state funding doesn't really work that great either, and relying on donations doesn't sound like a plan if you want to be able to tell your readers things they might not want to hear.
- jrs235 7y agoWell, since no true free market exists... reintroduce regulations that prevent media consolidation and conglomerates...
- luckylion 7y agoWould that change "bad news is good news" though? Even individuals on Twitter will gravitate to the most uncharitable understanding, the most outrageous version of events etc because it will generate the most attention. I'm not so sure we can rely on "journalists will not fall for the allure of fame" if we remove the corporate interest. My opinion is somewhere in this direction: there are some publications that are targeted at professionals that won't play the hysteria-game, because professionals don't need entertainment, they want information to base business decisions on. For the general public, "the news" doesn't really matter for most of their decisions ("Hong Kong is heating up ... how does this affect my dinner plans for Thursday?"), so they primarily get entertainment from the news, and when the companies give them what they want, you get what we have.