4 ms·
I think this sort of holds true for any modern news org in the west (and possibly world-wide). Look at the profit incentives and it makes sense which way report
by alpha_squared 6y ago
I think this sort of holds true for any modern news org in the west (and possibly world-wide). Look at the profit incentives and it makes sense which way reporting trends will go. The more outrageous/unbelievable the story, the more eyeballs; the more eyeballs, the more ad revenue. Some news orgs definitely take more liberty than others in bending the facts of a story just enough to carve out a demographic niche that they can depend on to keep coming back.
- glial 6y agoBusiness models based on advertising revenue are ruining the world.
- rs999gti 6y ago> Business models based on advertising revenue are ruining the world. What else do news agencies have to make money? The could sell stories and news for a subscription. But the news can be had for free in other places. They can't really sell classifieds anymore since Craigslist, Facebook, and forums have taken those posting monies away.
- alpha_squared 6y agoPersonally, I've actually gravitated more towards long-form stories that aren't exactly news as-it-happens and more about events unfolding. Because of that personal preference, I've subscribed to The Atlantic (and considering others). I remember reading a post on here about a month ago that seemed to indicate I wasn't alone in that trend. I posit that people are willing to pay for quality journalism that talks about a larger problem, but not for as-it-happens news. The latter has become a race to the bottom and first-out-the-door incentives drive it even lower (social media has certainly contributed immensely to this).
- tsimionescu 6y agoNews organisations have never lived just out of subscriptions and/or sales - advertising has always been the major part of their revenue, for most publications.
- glial 6y agoMaybe if they were better, people would pay for them. That’s how the market is supposed to work.
- tsimionescu 6y agoA market also has the option to decide that a type of product is simply not economically viable. However, certain products, while not being economically viable, can be socially necessary, so alternative models need to be found. News obviously falls in this category, similarly to public transport, healthcare and education. In those cases, other means of supporting the product can be found - usually, direct state intervention.
- glial 6y ago> certain products, while not being economically viable, can be socially necessary, so alternative models need to be found. News obviously falls in this category, similarly to public transport, healthcare and education Totally agree. News can be paid for via government support (BBC), direct public support via donations (NPR, PBS), support from foundations (CSPAN), subscriptions (Atlantic, FT, WSJ). Advertising is the worst way — and if news is of great value, we should pay with money rather than attention AND money.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> What else do news agencies have to make money? Patronage model, which (often also with subscription tiers on top of free content) is what bigger non-advertising media outlets seem to use; this works better if you qualify as a nonprofit with tax-advantaged donations, so may not be as useful for for-profit firms, but it's certainly a way that news organizations can exist and pay their staff and bills without advertising.
- minimuffins 6y agoThey could be funded unconditionally by the state. The BBC has, at times, been pretty good.