4 ms·

That doesn't make any sense logically - wouldn't there still be pressure to form emotional relationships and tribalism if even if they are still paid? They seem

That doesn't make any sense logically - wouldn't there still be pressure to form emotional relationships and tribalism if even if they are still paid? They seem more likely to leave or complain if it goes outside their desired bubble. It has the same logical flaw of the vapid cliche "If you're not paying you're the product." - No you can still be the product even when you are paying. Paying more is never a guarantee of value - worse yet it has been found doing so sets a sunk cost fallacy to justify the quality of what was spent. Cost may set a ceiling in terms of "paying $20 for a rocket" only getting you some fireworks or a model one at most but there is no guarantee that throwing $20M blindly won't end with you getting the same model rocket with a coat of paint and the seller moving to a Caribbean Island.

marcus_holmes 6y ago
If you have steady subscription revenue then you don't really care that much about how many times each story is read. It's more about how to appeal to a readership. Yes, this can be partisan, absolutely. But only if the target market is that partisan readership. There is also a valid non-partisan market that is worth going for. So not all media will be partisan, there will be a spread across the spectrum, with some attempting to be strictly neutral Advertising-driven journalism must get an emotional response in the title to be read, and every click matters. More extreme positions invoke a greater emotional response[0]. There's no room for non-partisan, sensible, balanced coverage because no-one clicks on it when the other option is an article designed to provoke fear or anger. So ad-driven journalism has to go to the extremes to maintain revenue. Hence we see the middle ground becoming a media wasteland, while the extremes get crowded. [0] political campaigns have the same thing: get people angry or afraid and they'll vote. Middle-ground, balanced, logical positions don't get people angry or afraid, so they don't vote. Extreme positions on issues actually work better than "sensible" positions.

marcus_holmes 6y ago

If you have steady subscription revenue then you don't really care that much about how many times each story is read. It's more about how to appeal to a readership. Yes, this can be partisan, absolutely. But only if the target market is that partisan readership. There is also a valid non-partisan market that is worth going for. So not all media will be partisan, there will be a spread across the spectrum, with some attempting to be strictly neutral Advertising-driven journalism must get an emotional response in the title to be read, and every click matters. More extreme positions invoke a greater emotional response[0]. There's no room for non-partisan, sensible, balanced coverage because no-one clicks on it when the other option is an article designed to provoke fear or anger. So ad-driven journalism has to go to the extremes to maintain revenue. Hence we see the middle ground becoming a media wasteland, while the extremes get crowded. [0] political campaigns have the same thing: get people angry or afraid and they'll vote. Middle-ground, balanced, logical positions don't get people angry or afraid, so they don't vote. Extreme positions on issues actually work better than "sensible" positions.