3 ms·
You're arguing a different point than the person you're responding to. You're correct of course, on the point that aggregators only function so long as they hav
by duru3b3jr 6y ago
You're arguing a different point than the person you're responding to. You're correct of course, on the point that aggregators only function so long as they have content to aggregate. But that doesn't mean that aggregators don't also promote further market consolidation. I don't think many people are arguing that publications like AP, Bloomberg, NYT, Reuters, Fox News (I know I know, but you can't pretend they aren't a major org), CNN, etc. are dying. What's dying is /local/ newspapers that might not offer robust world views but nonetheless often represent the most comprehensive source for stories of local significance like police controversies, local government corruption, community happenings, etc.
- bobthepanda 6y agoNYT has flirted with death before. The Chicago Tribune went through the bankruptcy wringer. Just this year the owner of several regional newspapers, also the second-largest newspaper chain in the country, declared bankruptcy: https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/13/media/mcclatchy-bankruptcy/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/13/media/mcclatchy-bankruptcy/in... The first biggest was merely acquired. AP isn't a publication, it's a co-op association that syndicates stories, so it actually also suffers from the aggregators' problems.