3 ms·

I don't agree with your assertion that "the demise of news kingdoms happened when it became impossible for us to ignore what we were getting for our money," and

by whakim 7y ago

I don't agree with your assertion that "the demise of news kingdoms happened when it became impossible for us to ignore what we were getting for our money," and I haven't seen any literature which would back up the argument that people suddenly woke and realized "we ain't paying for this shit anymore." There is, however, plenty of literature showing that with the advent of the internet the shortfall in print advertising was not made up for by online advertising. The "diet of crap" that you bemoan has always existed to a certain extent because of economics. More people want to read about celebrity gossip or sports than the CJR. The internet has simply exacerbated this issue because the online advertising model rewards eyeballs and clicks, and what you would call "crap" content generates more of them.

WarOnPrivacy 7y ago
Your rebuttal places responsibility for what news orgs print - on everyone but the news orgs. So your argument seems to be this. News orgs have to defer their 1st-Amendment-inferred duties in favor of printing pap because otherwise they'll go broke. In the mean time they're going broke. Americans have more sources of pap than ever before yet that is the arena where news orgs want to compete. Like news orgs, you appear to have zero concern with this plan. As an aside, did you know that House voted to reauth Sect 215 surveillance? WaPo barely mentions it in their own article. https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/11/19/house-passes-short-term-spending-bill-avert-thursday-midnight-shutdown/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/11/19/house-pa... I doubt you knew because 1000 news orgs are thoughtlessly, compulsively covering [SUPER SEXY STORY] today, to the exclusion of all else. I don't know how much other critical information I'm missing bc (like every day) the vast bulk of news orgs can't be bothered to fulfill their constitutionally-protected purpose for existing. Do you have a specific argument as to why news orgs are not earning their collective death? Other than some belief that they should continue to profit at pap, I mean.

by whakim 7y ago

WarOnPrivacy 7y ago

Your rebuttal places responsibility for what news orgs print - on everyone but the news orgs. So your argument seems to be this. News orgs have to defer their 1st-Amendment-inferred duties in favor of printing pap because otherwise they'll go broke. In the mean time they're going broke. Americans have more sources of pap than ever before yet that is the arena where news orgs want to compete. Like news orgs, you appear to have zero concern with this plan. As an aside, did you know that House voted to reauth Sect 215 surveillance? WaPo barely mentions it in their own article. https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/11/19/house-passes-short-term-spending-bill-avert-thursday-midnight-shutdown/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/11/19/house-pa... I doubt you knew because 1000 news orgs are thoughtlessly, compulsively covering [SUPER SEXY STORY] today, to the exclusion of all else. I don't know how much other critical information I'm missing bc (like every day) the vast bulk of news orgs can't be bothered to fulfill their constitutionally-protected purpose for existing. Do you have a specific argument as to why news orgs are not earning their collective death? Other than some belief that they should continue to profit at pap, I mean.