3 ms·

I would say "corporate" journalism. Independent, bloggers, and people that can work for themselves tend to be view as more trustworthy. You can immediately see

I would say "corporate" journalism. Independent, bloggers, and people that can work for themselves tend to be view as more trustworthy. You can immediately see what their vested interest are and gauge what's an honest opinion much simpler.

systemvoltage 6y ago
The problem is how can they sustain themselves with a living wage. Journalism sucks because no one wants to pay for it.
- theknocker 6y ago
  Then how does it exist? Journalism has been a full-blown larp masking elitist propaganda for like 6 decades.
- trident5000 6y ago
  The problem is just as much people who pay for it if you side with their politics. NY Times subscriptions are at all time highs with their cash flow stream being something like 95% liberal ideology payers. They are very much aware of who keeps the lights on.
  - malandrew 6y ago
    Yup, people are paying for outlets that don't cause cognitive dissonance. If you induce cognitive dissonance in your users, you lose subscribers and advertisers. Journalism was better before they had strong statistical tools to measure engagement and churn in real-time.
- medicineman 6y ago
  Putting the cart before the horse. Although I can see how it can become cyclical. It is only worth what someone will pay for it. Not sure who said that first but it makes sense to me in this case. It makes me think of iconic images of Americana that may never have happened outside celluloid; the work-a-day folks streaming past a television shop, stopping to stare at the glowing screens and watching the news broadcast. Doubt this would happen if that opportunity for spectation wasn't free. If it wasn't for the in-group signalling and prestige assigned by the aforementioned, I doubt many publications would be able to stick around on the merits of their content alone. Especially if they had to depend on the oft-maligned hoi-polloi such as myself for patronage.

systemvoltage 6y ago

The problem is how can they sustain themselves with a living wage. Journalism sucks because no one wants to pay for it.

theknocker 6y ago
Then how does it exist? Journalism has been a full-blown larp masking elitist propaganda for like 6 decades.
trident5000 6y ago
The problem is just as much people who pay for it if you side with their politics. NY Times subscriptions are at all time highs with their cash flow stream being something like 95% liberal ideology payers. They are very much aware of who keeps the lights on.
- malandrew 6y ago
  Yup, people are paying for outlets that don't cause cognitive dissonance. If you induce cognitive dissonance in your users, you lose subscribers and advertisers. Journalism was better before they had strong statistical tools to measure engagement and churn in real-time.
medicineman 6y ago
Putting the cart before the horse. Although I can see how it can become cyclical. It is only worth what someone will pay for it. Not sure who said that first but it makes sense to me in this case. It makes me think of iconic images of Americana that may never have happened outside celluloid; the work-a-day folks streaming past a television shop, stopping to stare at the glowing screens and watching the news broadcast. Doubt this would happen if that opportunity for spectation wasn't free. If it wasn't for the in-group signalling and prestige assigned by the aforementioned, I doubt many publications would be able to stick around on the merits of their content alone. Especially if they had to depend on the oft-maligned hoi-polloi such as myself for patronage.